Richard Hartmann, 20.01.2009: > On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 20:03, Markus Heidelberg > > > This repo is still under development, so I think renaming is not fatal, > > or is anybody screaming? However as long as I don't rebase, it should > > not be a big deal for a user, and I do not yet rebase. > > Personally, I would not even mind if the repo were to be redone > completely if it's cleaner in the longer run, so no screaming from me.
The cleanup will be done once, but it will still take some time. And this should be the only time where a rebase will happen. > > I first thought about naming your branch "test/join-lines-improved" or > > so, but I think I'll put it in the "feat" namespace. Any better idea for > > the name after the "feat/"? > > 'feature'? :) Oh, I meant a replacement for join-lines-improved (I wrote: after the "feat/"), but I think it's OK. "feat" was just inspired from Vim's "FEAT_..." compiler switches. > > Wait, another thought: how do you plan to handle this branch? Should it > > be stable (in terms of git) or do you want to rebase against the latest > > 'vim' everytime? For stable branches, we could use the "feat" namespace, > > for heavily under development or rebased for other reasons, the "test" > > namespace. For getting testers, not rebasing is the better choice, but > > for sending patches out, it may be easier to rebase. > > OK, that's your choice, but I'd like to know it. If in "feat", then I > > can ponder to include it in 'master'. > > That's a pretty good idea. Though I would suggest > > fix/ > feature/ > development/ I really prefer short namespaces: fix, feat, dev The specific names behind the "/" can be longer and descriptive. But at least I like "dev/" more than "test/" from above. > though fix/ prolly will not be needed, ever. Agreed. It's extended, fixes only belong into mainline. > Patchset authors > could then do both active development and stable releases in > the repo. Theoretically possible, but I'm not sure if it's worth to publish every step. You are able to do local commits, so committing every step online wouldn't be necessary from this point of view. But on the other hand I don't have objections against it. Just don't let us flood the repo with dev branches, but I don't think it's getting so far :) Markus --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
