On Aug 6, 2007, at 2:11 PM, Eric Dalquist wrote: > Sounds good. I think creating the branch is ok thought if it doesn't > prove to be viable to merged back into the core code or no one is > actively maintaining it after 4 months I'd like to have the option to > remove it to ensure we keep things clearly delineated as to what is > the > 'correct' 2.4 patches branch. > > -Eric
Sounds like we need a naming convention for working branches -- something like 'exploratory-2-4-2-alm' or 'working-2-4-2-alm' perhaps. Since SVN users tend to make more usage of branches, it seems like a worthwhile convention. Also, leveraging the fact that you can remove old working branches (tags should probably stick around). An interesting side note is that Sakai is moving towards branches organized around JIRA issue numbers - e.g. a SAK-XXXXX branch that can be removed later if it's unviable or merged into trunk. Jason -- Jason Shao Application Developer Rutgers University, Office of Instructional & Research Technology v. 732-445-8726 | f. 732-445-5539 | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http:// jay.shao.org -- You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
