From dev-return-24350-apmail-couchdb-dev-archive=couchdb.apache.org@couchdb.apache.org Tue Dec 4 18:08:21 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4E3DCE53E for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:08:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 9697 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2012 18:08:20 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-couchdb-dev-archive@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 9666 invoked by uid 500); 4 Dec 2012 18:08:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@couchdb.apache.org Received: (qmail 9657 invoked by uid 99); 4 Dec 2012 18:08:20 -0000 Received: from minotaur.apache.org (HELO minotaur.apache.org) (140.211.11.9) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:08:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (HELO mail-vb0-f45.google.com) (127.0.0.1) (smtp-auth username rnewson, mechanism plain) by minotaur.apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 18:08:20 +0000 Received: by mail-vb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id p1so3721388vbi.32 for ; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:08:19 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.175.167 with SMTP id cb7mr10710003vdc.58.1354644498987; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 10:08:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.68.209 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Dec 2012 10:08:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 18:08:18 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: branch names From: Robert Newson To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec515912528bb5a04d00ac028 --bcaec515912528bb5a04d00ac028 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable +1 On 4 December 2012 17:55, Jan Lehnardt wrote: > Hey all, > > just a heads up, the scheme for branch names we agreed on > is: 1532-feature-add-docs No underscores. Please follow > this. > > The fact that the cors branch doesn=92t follow this is a > historic artefact that I thought wasn=92t worth cleaning > up, but it looks I was wrong. > > From now on, I will rule with an iron fist about getting > these details right. Current branches with diverging names > are exempt. > > Cheers > Jan > -- > > --bcaec515912528bb5a04d00ac028--