Re: fast-forward only policy

[Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org>]

On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:52:54PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:17 PM, Olav Vitters <olav bkor dhs org> wrote:
> > On Tue, May 05, 2009 at 11:10:42PM +0300, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> >> > 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?
> >
> > You gave as reason 'you just switched your SCM and it's the best time to
> > do that'. That is what I was referring to. Now you give another argument
> > to the same question.
> 
> There are many reasons, I thought it was obvious that 'stable' is
> simpler than '1-2'.

Not to me when there are multiple stable branches. It then just is
latest-stable.

> >> 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.
> >
> > Very strong -1 to 'stable'.
> >
> > Can we rename branches? What breaks? Gentoo?
> 
> Gentoo is using your tarball releases. Or what do you mean?

They complain when stuff isn't branched/tagged properly. Forgot which.

You didn't address the rest of my question.

> >> Imagine someone who has been on a GNOME hiatus or is a new comer. What
> >> would be easier to understand? '1-2' or 'stable'?
> >
> > 'stable' was already discussed. Within GNOME 2.20, 2.22, 2.24, 2.26 etc
> > are stable. So it isn't clear.
> 
> The latest one, of course.
> 
> You don't need branches for targets that are not going to move.
> Branches are for moving targets, tags are for fixed ones.

That is just confusing. Really, I don't see why you don't see this.

-- 
Regards,
Olav