On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 00:26:21 -0800 "Robin H. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > There's two cases of branches I see (irrelevant of the names used): > Major version branches - eg CVS "cvs-1.11.x" and "cvs-1.12.x" > (those are the actual upstream branch names, I've seen other packages > using the branch names of 'STABLE', 'OLDSTABLE', 'FEATURE').
Right. These map to cvs-1.11-scm and cvs-1.12-scm (or you can use cvs-scm to point to whatever the newest branch is -- whichever is more convenient). > Feature-development branches - short-lived branches for the > development of a specific feature - eg the 'atombios-support' branch > of the xorg-video-ati driver (Heavily used in Git repos, where they > are deleted on completion). And these aren't considered by the proposal. The rationale is as follows: If a branch is short lived (your typical git branch), there's no point having an ebuild for it. If it's long lived, we get into the whole "which features have been merged into which branch?" mess that can't be solved by something as simple as version suffixes. -- Ciaran McCreesh
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
