David Ayers wrote:
Sheldon Gill schrieb:
Fred Kiefer wrote:
[snip]
- are we going to stick with the SVN recommended 'trunk', 'branch' and
'tag'
I would like to see this.
So would I. The thing I was thinking about is experimental or proof-of-concept
type work. At the moment it seems that mostly goes on in private sandboxes. It
may be beneficial to bring some of that work into the open?
- how are branches to be named? What about sub-branches?
I believe there were some suggestions before. I had no objections but
also no strong feelings.
Neither do I but I feel a set of guidelines would be a good thing.
- how are developers going to communicate about branches and what's
going on in them?
I would suggest the Wiki.
I'm all for that. Maybe with occasional announcements to the -dev list.
- what goes into tag? When?
You mean other than releases? Well since we have defined repository
states through revision numbers, I can't think of any necessity for more
tags. It's not like gnustep is seeing the kind of development activity
like, say, GCC. But maybe you have something specific in mind?
Main releases are obvious. I'm wondering about branch snapshots.
- Are we going to import more vendor trees? (like ffcall, portaudio etc)
I think we should keep anything not FSF assigned in a separate
repository so we have clear boundaries from where we can blindly
copy-and-paste code. Other than that I think there should be a
dedicated maintainer(s) for any external vendor tree who will keep them
up to date.
I'm not sure we need a separate repository. Wouldn't a vendor directory tree
would make the boundary equally clear?
Other than that, I'm in agreement with this.
Regards,
Sheldon
_______________________________________________
Gnustep-dev mailing list
Gnustep-dev@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnustep-dev