Brett Porter wrote:
+1, with comments (things to watch out for, not necessarily issues):
- the choice of "releases" over the conventional "tags" and "branches"
may be confusing to some people
I got used to "tags", but at first it was a confusing name for me. In
this case, "releases" makes more sense since it will only contain
releases and the name makes this very clear. However, I wasn't the
original person that argued for this, so maybe there is a better
justification out there. :-)
- I'm not sure I'd allot people their own sandbox. If you must have a
sandbox, it should still uphold collaborative development (J Aaron
Farr had a great quote in his ApacheCon lightening talk about this, if
only I could remember it)
I don't really have an opinion...it seems that the precise nature of
sandboxes can probably be deferred until a need arises. For now, we just
need to agree on the major structural elements of the repo.
- the use of a fully qualified name could be problematic in terms of
length on Windows (I don't know how long these get, but I have had
problems with a 255 character limit from time to time)
Who uses Windows? ;-)
Yes, this could become an issue, we will have to keep an eye on it...
-> richard
