On Tuesday, November 09, 2010 09:21:21 PM Bart Cerneels wrote: > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 17:04, Ian Monroe <i...@monroe.nu> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 9:57 AM, Leo Franchi <lfran...@kde.org> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, November 09, 2010 09:50:29 AM Ian Monroe wrote: > >>> I know some people are still using Gitorious repos and such for the > >>> ongoing work. However recently everyone has been granted the right > >>> to > >>> create branches on our git.kde.org/amarok.git repo. > >>> > >>> I think it would raise the visibility of feature branches if > >>> everyone > >>> just pushed them to the main repo. This would make things a bit > >>> 'messy', but I don't really think its a big problem. We could have a > >>> spring cleaning and move all the old branches into amarok-history if > >>> it becomes an issue. > >>> > >>> I do suggest that branches be named YYYYMMDD-description. > >> > >> +1 from me. Though I suggest for naming we could also do > >> > >> author-description > >> > >> instead. > > > > Yes, I think that naming scheme makes more sense. > > I don't agree since these kinds of branches are generally worked on by > multiple people. So having one "author" in the name is weird. I think > the date in the name makes more sense for spring cleaning purposes, > although it's not needed at all thanks to git's metadata.
Though even if it's a shared branch the creator of the branch can put his name on it :) The idea being there is some sort of easy categorization: so looking at the branches, you have an idea of who random branch X belongs to. Or even just use something like shared-mediadevicerefactor cheers, leo -- l...@kdab.com KDAB (USA), LLC lfran...@kde.org The KDE Project _______________________________________________ Amarok-devel mailing list Amarok-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel