Re: Proposal for new naming schema

[Maciej Stachowiak <mjs eazel com>]

rms39 columbia edu (Russell Steinthal) writes:

> 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.
> 

Well, right now in the releng module we have the gnome-1.4-branches
file which gives stable branches for most stuff (a dismaying array of
stuff has no stable branch at all, but so be it).

 - Maciej


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