Hi Frank, Dne Friday 28 of August 2009 21:37:33 Frank Schoenheit, Sun Microsystems Germany napsal(a):
> As long as we do not have a *perfect* fitting name, we should stay with > MWS and CWS. All other terms I read so far potentially lead to wrong > associations (e.g. the "feature" problem in a CWS, as mentioned by > Heiner). Sure, you can correct this by explaining the terms, but you'll > always have people not knowing the explanation. I'd prefer having terms > which cannot be understood without explanation over terms which can be > understood the wrong way. Well, my problem here is that for me, the term 'feature branch' is established enough ;-) And then I take the results of my googling as supportive arguments (eg. http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.2/svn.branchmerge.commonuses.html, or http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb668955.aspx), but of course, I may be wrong. > As cloph said, the development model of OOo is pretty unique, so I don't > see a need to forcefully use terms which have a different semantics in > different models. When you look at the usage of SCM, I don't think the development model of OOo is unique at all. Even the Linux kernel does the same thing - nobody else than Linus (== release engineers in OOo) can push to Linus'es tree (== to DEV300), and the (series of) patches are the CWSes ;-) Or am I missing something? Regards, Kendy --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
