On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 08:30 +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. > > > 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.
Why do you say that versions disappear faster? I don't understand that statement. And what is the merge mess you are trying to avoid? I know that keeping multiple trees in sync is complex, but I don't see how this introduces complexity. > > 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. I think we may just have different ways of looking at this. I spend my time porting patches between trees, so to me, every upstream release that's still maintained is logically a separate branch. Maybe the current scheme makes more sense for you folks working on the actual packaging. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
