On Wednesday 16 July 2008 00:23:53 Pavel Roskin wrote: > Yes, that's my suggestion. I understand that you may feel uneasy about > it, but I don't think we are going to do many releases from the legacy > branch, maybe one or none at all. > > It's OK to have stable and development branches. grub-legacy is > essentially our stable branch, even though it didn't start as a branch. > > CVS is inherently asymmetric. Certain things just don't work on > branches the way they work on trunk. That's why it was reasonable to > avoid branches with CVS for anything but release preparation. > > Subversion is (more) symmetric. It's possible to develop on any branch, > check the entire history of files, merge changes from other branches. > Separating trunk from other branches in the standard Subversion > repository layout is primarily to give comfort to CVS users, who are > used to having one trunk with a special status. > > We could have GRUB 2 under branches too and have no trunk. But having > GRUB 2 as the trunk gives us the standard layout, which is a good thing. > In any case, I think it's better than any of the "two-headed" solutions.
Hmm... I am very used to Subversion as well as CVS, but I myself always make a separation when two branches have no logical relationship (yes, both are in the same project, but have different code bases). Probably my way of thinking is to view directories as categories, while yours is ... I don't know how to call it. Please let me know others' opinions. I have difficulty in making a decision. Regards, Okuji _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
