----- Original Message -----
>
> >> Thanks for proposing this, Severin. In general I like it. My
> >> only
> >> concern is the difference between features and tags for releases.
> >> Will
> >> people be confused by released/{stable-,}0.9 being the maintenance
> >> branch for 0.9 micro releases?
>
> [...]
>
> > Having said that, keeping "stable-x" branches and tags as they are
> > now
> > and allowing feature branches of the form
> > "features/component/my-cool-feature" is fine as well.
> >
>
> I like the idea of keeping the stable stuff as is. People already
> understand this model and there will be no confusion or explanation
> needed. The rest of it could be kept under feature/ or experimental/
> maybe with the name of the creator prefixed so you know whom to ask
> for
> more info. So experimental/sami-my-cool-feature.
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that the more complicated the final
> scheme
> is the less encouraged people will be to create experimental
> branches.
All good points. As long as there is some way to informally push work to
a branch in the official repository without confusing people too
much as to what certain branches are for I'm happy :)
Conclusion?
1.) Keep existing stable naming scheme
2.) Decide a few simple rules for "namespacing" experimental/feature
work
Does that sound right?
--Severin
_______________________________________________
linuxtools-dev mailing list
linuxtools-dev@eclipse.org
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxtools-dev
