Re: fast-forward only policy

[Felipe Contreras <felipe contreras gmail com>]

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote:
> 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.

What I'm proposing makes things simpler. Do I need to make a good
argument of why simple things are good?

To be clear on what I'm proposing: there's no need to add 'project' to
branch names when you already know the project ('1-2' is fine). But
going into the next level, there's no need to have '1-2', '1-4' and
'1-0', 'stable' and 'master' are more than enough.

Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer. What
would be easier to understand? '1-2' or 'stable'?

-- 
Felipe Contreras