> But right now there are two problems that need to be resolved > so we know where things are supposed to go. > > 1. Should linux-2.6 go in trunk/kernel/ or just trunk. > Given that we no longer need source and per-arch directories, > it seems logical to just move it up to trunk/ > But thats a bit of a departure from the old model, and > burns holes in some peoples brains.
The old layout burned holes in my brain, so I'd surely welcome this ;-) > 2. If we assume that we have two versions of linux-2.6, one based > on the current upstream (and likely in sid/testing) and one > based on some upstream rc releases (and likely in experimental) > where should these two directories go. The main two camps seem to be: > > a) They are both being developled, so we may as well have them in > trunk as linux-2.6 and linux-2.6-experimental, or something like > that. We always had multiple versions in trunk in the past, > and no one complained. This is fine with me. Just make sure -experimental is actually branched of linux-2.6 so svns primitive merging has a chance to work. > b) Everything must come off trunk. Only the very leading edge can be > in trunk. If the sid version isn't that then it should > go under branches, and if that happens to be the version in sid, > it should be branches/dists/sid/linux-2.6 (or > branches/dists/sid/kernel/linux-2.6, depending on 1) above). > > Personally, in the context of the two questions above, I advocate > trunk/linux-2.6 > trunk/linux-2.6-experimental <aol>me too!</aol> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]