On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:24:14PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 11:59:51AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > Ok, this is a mess, so we probably need to hold a little flamewar about how > > we > > want the tree organized or something, before we start moving stuff back and > > fort. > > > > I believe that the trunk is for main development, and it is important that > > we > > keep the version we are actually using in trunk, and not the next version as > > the linux-2.6.13-rcsomething. > > > > Also, i am not overly convinced about the branch stuff, especially for main > > branches where we are going to work on, and not some obscure stuff only some > > will want to play with. > > > > Furthermore, now that the kernel subdir is going to be emptied of its > > content, > > in favour of the single linux-2.6 package, we could as well move linux-2.6 > > into the toplevel. > > > > So, my proposal was to have : > > > > /trunk/linux-2.6 <- main 2.6 kernel being uploaded to sid > > I liked that, I always hated the enormous hierachies in the old > repository.
:) And we had already trimmed them from the first design. > > /trunk/linux-2.6-experimental <- the experimental version. > > SVN allows branches to reside anywhere freely, including under /trunk, > right? In that case this is okay, just make sure it really is a branch > so merges work fine. svn cp should be a branch. Merges are really a bit messy in svn, but i hear svk can do miracles for you there. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
