Tagging CVS was Re: New repository/new branch

[Charles Benett]

Serge Knystautas wrote:

Danny Angus wrote:

My personal opinion closely matches Matthew's. If you want to stabilize
development of 2.1, and encourage development of 3.0, then name 2.1 a
branch. If you want to encourage development of two divergent code
bases, then create two CVS trees.


I think we have a concensus then, both internally and incuding Sam's
comment, for a branch?

d.

I agree that work on 2.1.x should be in a branch with head being work on 3.0.

I think so. I'll go ahead and tag and branch later tonight unless there's someone wants me to hold on it.

Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies
http://www.lokitech.com/

Serge,
I haven't got access to cvs docs at the moment but that doesn't sound right. I think (could be wrong) that you need to tag with 2.1 when we release. Then (later) when someone has a 2.1.1 change, the branch is made.
Charles





--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>