Re: Branches in CVS repository?

[Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>]

Nick Clifton wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> > > We could, if you can convince me that it is unneeded.  At the moment 
> > > I still think that it is useful.
>
>
> > But if it's not useful to someone else, and they're already operating 
> > in a separate tag namespace, why is it important to you?
>
>
> Presumably you mean "a separate tag namespace when creating branches for 
> other projects" ?

Yes; I was meaning that if we agree on the "<project>-<org>-<name>" 
style (where "<name>" may have additional structure, such as your 
"<name>-<date>" suggestion), then we can already be sure that 
CodeSourcery's tags will not conflict with Red Hat's tags, for example.

> Fair enough - if I am the only one who thinks that these dates would be 
> helpful then I am not going to insist on them.

OK; I'm of the symmetric opinion: if the policy is to add the dates, I 
will certainly respect that, but I'd prefer not to do so.

I suggest the following: I'll prepare a patch for binutils/MAINTAINERS 
that explains the policy, and submit it.  When I do that, you can decide 
whether you want to require the <date> portion of the branch name, and, 
if so, I will adjust the MAINTAINERS file before committing.  Is that a 
reasonable way to proceed?

--
Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
mark@codesourcery.com
(916) 791-8304