On Thu, 17 Jul 2008 11:20:47 +0800
Bean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Pavel Roskin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 23:02 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
> >
> >> I don't agree on this. GRUB Legacy and GRUB 2 are developed fully
> >> independently (if any). If we follow your way, the repository
> >> would look like this:
> >>
> >> branches/
> >> grub-legacy/
> >> prepare_0_97/
> >> prepare_0_98/
> >> prepare_1_98/
> >> prepare_1_99/
> >> ...
> >>
> >> I feel that this has no logical structure. When we make a branch
> >> for GRUB 2, we put it under branches, when we modify the "trunk"
> >> of GRUB Legacy, we do under branches, when we make a branch for
> >> GRUB Legacy, we use branches...
> >
> > 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.
>
> Hi,
>
> If we're using branches, I suggest the following layout:
>
> branches
> grub-legacy
> trunk
> tags
> grub-0.97
> grub-1.96
> ...
>
> trunk is grub2, the current develop branch, and grub-legacy is under
> branches.
This layout makes perfect sense if we are treating GRUB legacy and GRUB
2 as the same project, but where GRUB 2 is now the development mainline
and GRUB legacy is a past release codeline.
On the other hand, if GRUB legacy and GRUB 2 are considered separate
projects, then having completely separate sub-trees like:
grub-legacy/
trunk/ - 0.9x mainline
tags/
grub-0.97 - tagged release
branches/
grub/
trunk/ - GRUB 2 mainline
tags/
grub-1.96 - GRUB v1.96 release
branches/
makes more sense. I think we could actually go either way. It's not
as if there is going to be much activity on grub-legacy anyway, right?
Regards,
Colin
_______________________________________________
Grub-devel mailing list
Grub-devel@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
