Re: fast-forward only policy
- From: Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>
- To: Felipe Contreras <felipe contreras gmail com>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: fast-forward only policy
- Date: Tue, 5 May 2009 21:57:24 +0200
On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 10:53:55PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> > Le mardi 05 mai 2009, à 01:51 +0300, Felipe Contreras a écrit :
> >> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 1:21 AM, Marc-André Lureau
> >> <marcandre lureau gmail com> wrote:
> >> > Hi
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 12:57 AM, Felipe Contreras
> >> > <felipe contreras gmail com> wrote:
> >> >> [...] what is the point of having 'project' in the branch
> >> >> name? Branches are per-repository, so you would never have a non
> >> >> 'gtk-' branch in the GTK+ repo.
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Not "project" but really "[project]-[MAJOR]-[MINOR]"..
> >> Yes, I meant why "project-major-minor" (gtk-2-17) when you already
> >> know 'project'. What information would be lost with a '2-17' branch
> >> name?
> > Why should we change a policy we had for ages and which works fine?
> Because you just switched your SCM and it's the best time to do that?
To state more clearly: What is the benefit of switching? Does it
outweigh the inconsistency of breaking current usage?
> > Note that for GNOME modules specifically, having gnome-2-26 is important
> > since it makes it clear that this is a branch for GNOME 2.26. Even if
> > gvfs is at version 1.2, for example.
> I'm not sure the guidelines I've read mention that usage, but in any
> case that's not a compelling argument; you can still have branches
> '1-2' and 'gnome-2-26'.
IMO you should make a good argument to switch, not the other way around.
] [Thread Prev