I think the working- prefix would be very helpful. I'm going to be doing something similar soon for maven work on the trunk and will plan on using the working- prefix if that sounds like a good option to the rest of the committers.
-Eric Jason Shao wrote: > 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] > <mailto:[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
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
