On Wed, 2008-07-16 at 21:59 -0700, Colin D Bennett wrote: > > 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 2 and GRUB Legacy have consistent version numbering. They are developed by the same people. They serve the same purpose. Users checking out GRUB trunk don't expect to get GRUB Legacy. Let's take another project and look at it as outsiders to get some perspective. Suppose gcc 5 is rewritten in Haskell. Do we expect it to be in a separate repository? Do we expect to get both gcc 4 and gcc 5 when checking out gcc trunk? I don't think so. Calling the project "gcc 5" means that the lineage continues, the standard commit procedures remain in place, older versions are in branches and security updates are cut from those branches, be it gcc 3 or gcc 4. Having gcc 3 in a branch but gcc 4 and gcc 5 in the trunk would be perverse. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
