Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of marcus.mail@wtnet.de
 designates 213.209.103.3 as permitted sender)
Message-ID: <4E0B1601.9040605@wtnet.de>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 14:09:37 +0200
From: "Marcus (OOo)" <marcus.mail@wtnet.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Naming of trunk and feature branches
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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

OOO340 = branch
Branched from a specific DEV300 milestone to stablize the code when 
coming closer to a specific release (here: OOo 3.4)

I would say we should stay with this schema to name master and feature 
branches.

With the exception that is should be DEV400 instead as OOo 3.0 is done 
and we are (somehow) on the way to a 4.0 version. ;-)

*)
Sorry if this is way to early to decide and not necessary before we have 
a established svn repo. I just wanted to have a agreement before it's 
maybe too late and a renaming to complex.

Marcus