incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.m...@wtnet.de>
Subject Re: Naming of trunk and feature branches
Date Wed, 29 Jun 2011 13:33:03 GMT
Sorry, it seems I wasn't clear enough.

I don't think about how to name directories and files in the SVN repo 
itself. Sure we can stick with the schema like it is done in other 
projects. It's more a general thing how to present trunk and branches to 
the outside.

E.g., when we release bits we have to make clear into which direction 
they point. It's a difference if we use a name like "branch 3.4.x" or 
tell the people it's "OOO 3.4.0" or maybe "AOOO 3.4.0".

So, I don't think that a trailing 0 is not ? when it is the 3.4.0 
release. And the OOO is still necessary to show it's from our project. 
Of course it could be "AOOO" or whatever we will agree to.

How to name the release files is another thing. There should be a clear 
structure to keep it simple and straight for scripts. But this is a 
topic for later.

I hope it's more clear now. ;-)

Marcus



Am 06/29/2011 03:03 PM, schrieb Greg Stein:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 08:09, Marcus (OOo)<marcus.mail@wtnet.de>  wrote:
>> With the discussions about the master and feature branches, the following
>> question comes to my mind.
>>
>> What about this naming schema for master and feature branches? *)
>>
>> In the past we had the following:
>>
>> DEV300 = master/trunk/head
>> This will never lead to a release
>
> We're using Subversion, and nearly every svn repository across the
> planet names this "trunk". Unless there is a specific reason to vary
> from that, I don't see why we'd want to name the directory "DEV300".
>
>> OOO340 = branch
>> Branched from a specific DEV300 milestone to stablize the code when coming
>> closer to a specific release (here: OOo 3.4)
>
> Branches can be named whatever we'd like. My own preference would be
> to call this: /branches/3.4.x
>
> The "OOO" is awfully redundant, and the last digit ("0") doesn't make
> sense since we would be releasing patches from the branch such as
> 3.4.1. The "3.4.x" naming is used by many products, and it has worked
> out very well.


Mime
View raw message