On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 08:30:56AM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Mon, Nov 07, 2005 at 08:02:35AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > I have another proposal, and it involves symlinks. Simon has shown that > > using > > symlinks inside svn is fully supported by svn, so let's try that. > > This is incorrect. Symlinks are dumb pointers.
Indeed, but the checked out tree remain. > > The plan goes as follows : > > ..../dists/versions/2.6.12 > > ..../dists/versions/2.6.14 > > ..../dists/versions/2.6.15-rcX > > ..../dists/versions/2.6.15 > > .... > > ..../dists/versions/2.6-git > > WHAT does this fix, except that version disappear faster and you go into > a merge mess I wanted to avoid. not, because the versions will stay around. > > This should solve everyone's problem, i believe. > > Not until someone discribed what the problem is that this should solve. > The problem is, that someone insists into removing the _main > development_ tree. Indeed. The idea was to move 2.6.14 to sid, and make the out-of-git tree the main development tree, which was exactly what *YOU* where advocating post 2.6.12, so i don't understand what you are complaining about. Bastian what do you think about my idea of splitting infrastructure and per-version stuff ? I would hearthily like to hear your comments on that. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
