On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 11:04:54AM -0700, Larry Lords wrote:
> I have a question on Jim's statement "Private branches are never considered
> candidates for releases or for builds".
The operative word is "private".
> I have always understood that a company
> would always release from a private branch.
No; from a *non*-private branch. Other than that detail, your
description of a branch-based release process sounds bang on.
CVS doesn't distinguish between private and non-private branches;
from its point of view they're all just "cvs tag -b <branch>"
branches. The only difference is in your intention in creating
thebranch, and thus what you subsequently do with it; CVS doesn't
know or care. Hence Jim's suggestion of a naming scheme so your
team can keep all those different-purposed branches straight.
(Vendor branches, which of course CVS does treat specially, don't
come into this discussion at all.)
--
| | /\
|-_|/ > Eric Siegerman, Toronto, Ont. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
| | /
It must be said that they would have sounded better if the singer
wouldn't throw his fellow band members to the ground and toss the
drum kit around during songs.
- Patrick Lenneau
_______________________________________________
Info-cvs mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/info-cvs
