12 Mar
2007
12 Mar
'07
4:39 p.m.
On 03/12/07 15:30, Christian Schlatter wrote:
Daniel-Constantin Mierla wrote:
Same opinion here, so we renamed
branches to a.b and tags to a.b.c.
Cheers,
Daniel
another question :-) ,
so shall we rename the old branches and tags to reflect the new
naming schema?
I'd recommend to do so in order to avoid confusion. The handy thing
about having an a.b branch is that one can checkout a branch and each
update will get all bug fixes for this branch.
Christian
Cheers,
Daniel
On 03/12/07 12:06, Henning Westerholt wrote:
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
Am Montag, 12. Mdrz 2007 11:01 schrieb Klaus
Darilion:
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users This is also how asterisk does it and I'm
fine with it. IMO it makes
sense to not have a "patch version number" in the branch name.
btw: why not using "." instead of "_", e.g.
Nevertheless we should also have tags for each release.
As tags and branches are simply cheap copies in subversion, i second
this option.
1.2 for the branch, 1.2.0 - 1.2.N for the release tags.
Best regards,
Henning
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)openser.org
http://openser.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users