On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 08:26 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 05:45:16PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > > > Hu? It disappeared without notice. > > If I'd been working on the tree at the time, I probably would've whined > > then too. > > The development version disappeared. > > > A little more ranting... I don't like that we're using a temporal layout > > because it means moves are always happening. svn lets us move stuff, > > which is a great feature, but the way we're using it is an abuse of this > > feature (imo). > > Hu? Why does it disappear in the first time? > > > To avoid being one that complains without providing an alternate > > suggestion - what if we tracked things by upstream kernel version? > > > > linux-2.6/2.6.12/ > > linux-2.6/2.6.14/ > > Please explain what this will fix?
Its one way to prevent trees from being moved around in svn. 2.6.14 would always be under linux-2.6/2.6.14 (or whatever) - at least as long as that tree is still being maintained. I wouldn't have to worry about an svn up moving a tree out from under me, which happens way too often these days. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
