Jim Jagielski wrote: > How about: > > o CTR on trunk > > o Various release branches are made (ala httpd, apr, etc...). > These include a STATUS file. > > o All code applied to the release branch is under > lazy consensus but *must* be specified in STATUS. > (eg: "I plan on applying rev786987 in 3 days under > lazy consensus"). > > Not as stringent as RTC, but also provides a good level > of oversight with a minimum of overhead... RTC can be > maintained for older, stable releases.
Still -1. It provides no more oversight than RTC and adds the overhead of having to update the status file 3 days before you can do anything. The contents of the status file can be generated retrospectively from svn if anyone finds it useful. Mark --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
