On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 09:54:31AM +0000, Horms wrote: > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:07:24AM +0900, Horms wrote: > > > > Yes and no. The problem is that basically we have two different things, the > > first one is the build infrastructure, which should really not be all that > > different for each version, and which there is really no need to have a > > branch > > per version from. > > > > On the other hand, the per version configs and patches cannot be done > > without, > > and thus should be hold in a different branch each. > > > > This indeed adds some complexity (rather minimal though if done right), but > > on > > the other hand it will keep the branching to the absolute minimum, and > > weren't > > you the one complaining about too many branches ? > > Yes, though it doesn't decrease the number of branches, the number > of non-infastructure branches remains the same, and additionally, > we have a (sometimes branched) set of infastruture somewhere else.
Well, we can't avoid those version/dists branches at all, but there is really no need to duplicate the infrastructure stuff all over. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
