Re: Proposal for new naming schema

[rms39 columbia edu (Russell Steinthal)]

On 15 Feb 2001 18:50:30 +0100, Martin Baulig wrote:

>Christian Meyer <chrisime mailing uni de> writes:

>> I'd like to propose the following naming schema:
>>  
>> For GNOME 1.x versions we should use something like: <package_name>-1.  or:
>> <package_name-version>-gnome-1.  The latter one results in a very long BRANC
>H
>> name. I don't know if everybody wants that.
>
>I think that's a very bad idea since in the first place package version number
>s
>have nothing at all to do with GNOME version numbers. I mean, "GNOME 1.4" is
>just a collection of different packages with different versions.
>
>CVS branch names should correspond to the package version they were created
>for and not according to whether they're for a particular GNOME release or not.

While I tend to agree with Martin that it's probably not feasible to 
have a uniform branch naming scheme, I also agree that it's more 
difficult than necessary to figure out which branch should be used... 
Perhaps we could include a standardized branch description file in 
each module?  For example, a file BRANCHES which lists the CVS branch 
names, their stability status, and what GNOME versions (if any) they 
correspond to.  Alternatively, we could specify that all unstable 
versions have a file STABLE_BRANCH_IS_WHATEVER, etc...

I know that this is documented in README and HACKING files in some 
modules, but a standardized location couldn't hurt.

As Martin said, "Just my opinion."

-Russell




-- 
Russell Steinthal		Columbia Law School, Class of 2002
<rms39 columbia edu>		Columbia College, Class of 1999
<steintr nj org>		UNIX System Administrator, nj.org



_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers