On Tuesday 24 June 2008 04:29:09 am Szakáts Viktor wrote:
> > Do you agree with such a branch layout and versioning?:
> >
> > + harbour - commit all new developments
> >
> > |-+ harbour-1.0 - commit 1.0 fixes only ("1.0dev")
> > | +-- harbour-1.0.0RCn - read-only for RC release
> > | +-- harbour-1.0.n - read-only for final release
> > |
> > |-+ harbour-1.1 - commit 1.1 fixes only
> > | +-- harbour-1.1.0bn - read-only for beta release
> > | +-- harbour-1.1.0RCn - read-only for RC release
> > | +-- harbour-1.1.n - read-only for final release
> > |
> > |-+ harbour-2.0 - commit 2.0 fixes only
> > | +-- harbour-2.0.0bn - read-only for beta release
> > | +-- harbour-2.0.0RCn - read-only for RC release
> > | +-- harbour-2.0.n - read-only for final release
> > | ...
> >
> > ...
>
> To emphases all that in the SVN tree, I propose this
> layout:
>
> main branch:
> /trunk/harbour (what we have)
>
> bugfix branches:
> /branches/harbour-1.0
> /branches/harbour-1.1
> /branches/harbour-2.0
>
> read-only "tags":
> /tags/harbour-1.0.0RCn
> /tags/harbour-1.1.0bn
> /tags/harbour-1.1.0RCn
> /tags/harbour-2.0.0bn
> /tags/harbour-2.0.0RCn
> (we already have all the old CVS "tags" here)
>
> Opinions? Phil?
This looks sane.
--
Waiting for sunspots.
_______________________________________________
Harbour mailing list
Harbour@harbour-project.org
http://lists.harbour-project.org/mailman/listinfo/harbour
