On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 08:58:43PM +0100, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote: > Martin Vermeer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | > Right. > | > | We have quite a set of branches already... are they all actual anymore? > > No. (That was a rhetorical Q right?)
That's what I guessed. > | Based on names, we see a mix of release branches, feature branches and > | one personal-name branch ;-) > > On top level we should only have the active non-personal branches. > Personal branches should be moved to 'personal'¹ some appropriate > place. Obosolete branches shoudl be moved to 'obsolete'² (I don't > want to delete them, they would be so hard to find later then.) Perhaps. Do any of these contain stuff we still want to have a look at? I certainly plan to have my new project branches with a limited lifetime (and SVN never "really" deletes anything :-) > One thing with subversion is that it is a lot easier to use branches, > and they are not slow as in cvs. I will at least create 5-8 branches > for myself. Stuff I work with, ideas, etc. > > I also want to do some reorganization with the tags. > > ¹ Or propose abetter name please. No... "personal" is it. So I understand this is really a sandbox thing; stuff intended to make it to the main tree should be in named project/feature branches on top level? - Martin
pgp7sg8lnOz9K.pgp
Description: PGP signature
