Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
Subject: Re: branch names
From: Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJNb-9pgr5V-tn+e1tJzJ_3M5kFD4JMMjtMX6pV6eiNAdCFE1A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2012 19:48:19 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AAB58289-5277-4FB4-B9F2-D511A47F35BC@apache.org>
References: <AC2CC180-8A8C-48D5-8FF8-AD3B8FC1E111@apache.org>
 <CAJNb-9o2MM2WZeOn==F1sXF59DX+aQrHX5cDNpYLCJxiqd7+xw@mail.gmail.com>
 <206C43BB-4E2F-4D9D-BC6D-85004D2F2ABB@apache.org>
 <CAJNb-9pgr5V-tn+e1tJzJ_3M5kFD4JMMjtMX6pV6eiNAdCFE1A@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org


On Dec 4, 2012, at 19:44 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 7:33 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>=20
>>=20
>> On Dec 4, 2012, at 19:19 , Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>>> On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>> Hey all,
>>>>=20
>>>> just a heads up, the scheme for branch names we agreed on
>>>> is: 1532-feature-add-docs No underscores. Please follow
>>>> this.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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.
>>>>=20
>>>> =46rom now on, I will rule with an iron fist about getting
>>>> these details right. Current branches with diverging names
>>>> are exempt.
>>>>=20
>>>> Cheers
>>>> Jan
>>>> --
>>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Actually we were agree to discuss that later a little more.
>>=20
>> Nope, we made a decision:
>>=20
>>=20
>> =
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/201210.mbox/%3cDEC04D=
B0-172C-4517-8554-2BE049A2F606@apache.org%3e
>>=20
>>=20
> I only said:
>=20
> "Anyway if we stay with the current situation yes having one referent =
doc
> would be good."
>=20
> wasn't considering it so strict neither as a decision. Anyway if most
> think it should be done like this then go.

I am operating under =93lazy consensus=94 here. I made a proposal, some =
people
weighed in, there were no objections, the issue is resolved. Case =
closed,
moving on. We have software to ship.

If you want to discuss the finer points of hyphen/underscore branch =
names,
be my guest, but don=92t expect me to spend energy on this that could go
into shipping 1.3.0.

Cheers
Jan
--=20