geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shawn Jiang <genspr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Strange GEP branch versions.
Date Tue, 09 Nov 2010 03:01:53 GMT
C:\Users\genspring>svn mv
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.1.7
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.1
-m "use more reasonable naming for branch"

Committed revision 1032824.

C:\Users\genspring>svn mv
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.2.1
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.2
-m "use more reasonable naming for branch"

Committed revision 1032825.

C:\Users\genspring>svn mv
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0.2
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/2.0
-m "use more reasonable naming for branch"

Committed revision 1032826.

C:\Users\genspring>svn mv
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/1.2.1
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/1.2
-m "use more reasonable naming for branch"

Committed revision 1032827.: /geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches

..
1.2/
2.0/
2.1/
2.2/




On Mon, Nov 8, 2010 at 10:13 PM, Delos <daition@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know the reason either, seems it's a convention for GEP from version
> 1.2.1. You may make it the same as server, I think.
>
> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 11:21 PM, Ted Kirby <ted.kirby@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I had the same question, tho I never asked it.  I think the branches
>> should be named 2.1 and 2.2 as well.  As Kevan points out, this works
>> for server.  I think GEP should do it this way too.
>>
>> Ted
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 6:36 AM, Shawn Jiang <genspring@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/devtools/eclipse-plugin/branches/
>> >
>> >    * ..
>> >    * 2.1.7/
>> >    * 2.2.1/
>> >
>> >  Is there any special reasons that we have to use this kind of version
>> > way ?
>> >
>> > I think we should name them 2.1 and 2.2 instead of 2.1.7 and 2.2.1.
>> > Upgrade the branch name for each release will lose the full svn
>> > history view of a branch.
>> > --
>> > Shawn
>> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
>
> Delos
>



-- 
Shawn

Mime
View raw message