In Subversion, a tag can be promoted to a branch. With the way the global revisions works, tagging doesn't seem as important as it was with CVS, but it still seems like a good practice to follow.
Generally, you only need to branch when you * Need to fix something between scheduled releases * Want to experiment with a revolutionary line of development. The Java team is alternating odd and even releases, for bug-fixes and features, but I don't know if we need to adopt that practice for the C# code base. We have a ticket in regarding the eyebrowse archive. * http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/INFRA-138 I'm sure it will be fixed eventually. -Ted. On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 22:54:46 -0500, roberto wrote: >�Oh, forgot one thing�Any plans to register the ibatis.net domain? > >�Roberto > > >�-----Original Message----- >�From: roberto [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >�Sent: Monday, January 10, 2005 10:53 PM >�To: [email protected] >�Subject: Subversion and a few other Qs > >�Hi.��I noticed that the WUSH.NET repository is changing structure.� > >�Is this in prep to move the repository to Apache with iBATIS for >�Java also in Subversion?��Is there a firmer date for this move? > >�How will the branching work (will there actually be branches)?��I >�seem to recall reading that iBATIS for Java was going for a release >�schedule like: .0 new features ->�.1 bug fixes ->�.2 new features - >�>�.3 bug fixes etc (or maybe I made that up or mixed it up with my >�projects at work!��LOL).��Is iBATIS.NET also headed for the same >�release pattern? > >�How is the documentation update for Java going to be handled?��I >�know that the DocBook-based Data Mapper Guide for .NET is now split >�up into various chapter files, but there is .NET-specific content >�in the �common� files, such as in examples and explanatory text.� >�Are the Java and .NET docs really going to share the same �common� >�files with the Developer Guide chapters being more specific > >�Is EyeBrowse still in the works for the email list archives?��I do >�use mail-archive.com right now. > >�Thanks! > >�Roberto
