httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Jagielski <...@jaguNET.com>
Subject Re: CVS branches and working directories
Date Fri, 06 Jun 1997 12:05:01 GMT
Ben Laurie wrote:
> 
> sameer wrote:
> > 
> > > 
> > > BTW - Ben was correct about my mistakenly commiting the version 
> > > change _before_ branching. We need to change that to whatever the 
> > > target should be. Should it be 1.3-dev, or 2.0-dev?
> > 
> > 	2.0 is the head. 1.2.X is the branch. If 1.2.X changes to such
> > a degree that it should be called 1.3, then we create a 1.3 along the
> > 1.2.X branch.
> > 	That's my opinion, at least.
> 
> No! 1.3 is the head (we're doing NT, remember?), 1.2.X is the branch. 2.0
> should have its own repository, I feel.
> 

Hrm... I have a feeling that 2.0 will, at least at the start, be
heavily based on 1.2/1.3, so I would lean towards 2.0 being the
head.

BUT Ben's method is mostly like the easiest to work with... +1

-- 
====================================================================
      Jim Jagielski            |       jaguNET Access Services
     jim@jaguNET.com           |       http://www.jaguNET.com/
            "Look at me! I'm wearing a cardboard belt!"

Mime
View raw message