Date: 10 Jun 1996 06:55:22 -0500 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "FreeBSD Hackers" <hackers@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: "Rodney W. Grimes" <rgrimes@GndRsh.aac.dev.com> Subject: Re(2): Re(2): The naming of branches Message-ID: <n1377732754.24577@Richard Wackerbarth>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In a dialog with Rodney Grimes: > I have no problem with that, but sending this to me in private email is > not going to get it to happen, I am not the repository manager, this needs > to be on the list or it won't happen.... I recognize that private e-mail (unless perhaps with the "person in charge") is not going to cause changes. However, I also prefer using private e-mail when continuing a discussion and only posting summaries that may be of general interest.. Therefore, I post this summary: I my discussion with Rodney Grimmes about the history of the naming conventions in the cvs tree, I commented that I thought that the name "2_1" was more appropriate than "2_1_0" for the "head" of the 2.1 branch because that branch includes 2.1.0, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, etc. To this he replied: > > > That is up to the CVS manager and release team to decide, > > > but the rational of having them be a tuple is that they are > > > all the same length and it makes it quite easy to see the _BP, > > > _RELEASE, _ALPHA, etc no matter what level you are at. > > > > In that case call it "2_1_X". It is confusing to be looking for > > something that comes after 2.1.5 and find it under 2.1.0. > > I have no problem with that, but sending this to me in private email is > not going to get it to happen, I am not the repository manager, this needs > to be on the list or it won't happen.... -- Richard Wackerbarth rkw@dataplex.net -- ...computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and weigh only 1/2 tons. -- Popular Mechanics, March 1949
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?n1377732754.24577>