In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeffrey D. Brekke writes:
Daniel, I agree with all your ideas, but it seems to me you can branch
from any tagged point in the revision history so I'm not sure what the
idea is behind deleting/renaming the tags.
All I was getting at was what to name the tag. My
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeffrey D. Brekke writes:
Daniel, I agree with all your ideas, but it seems to me you can branch
from any tagged point in the revision history so I'm not sure what the
idea is behind deleting/renaming the tags.
All
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Martin Cooper writes:
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Daniel F. Savarese wrote:
All I was getting at was what to name the tag. My understanding was
that a tag needs to be created as a branch. I should have used
...
to point out that there are two distinct types of tags in
Daniel, I agree with all your ideas, but it seems to me you can branch
from any tagged point in the revision history so I'm not sure what the
idea is behind deleting/renaming the tags.
http://www.cvshome.org/docs/manual/cvs-1.11.10/cvs_5.html#SEC56
Given that, as per Steve's message, we can
I like the idea of supporting older jvm versions while moving forward
with new development. I would suggest we do the branching slightly
different than you have described. I've found that keeping normal
development happening on the HEAD branch to be more beneficial than an
experimental branch.
I've found that keeping normal development happening on the
HEAD branch to be more beneficial than an experimental
branch. We would branch for bug fixes only, all new
development proceeds on HEAD.
If projects start moving to Subversion, which will start happening next year
anyway, these
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeffrey D. Brekke writes:
After we make a 1.1 compatible release and tag, that will be the
branch point for any 1.1 fixes. Next we can make a release with 1.2
support and tag, that will be the branch point for any 1.2 related
fixes. All development then proceeds on
I wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jeffrey D. Brekke writes:
Its just a suggestion. I can live with an experimental branch also,
just in other projects I've been involved with, if HEAD isn't the
focal point of new development, it get confusing where to put stuff,
what is working, etc.
I
I wrote:
Sanity check the steps to make sure this is what we want:
o rename NET_1_1_0 tag to something else, let's say FOO
o tag FOO as NET_1_1_0, this time with the -b flag to make it a branch tag
I left out delete the FOO tag ...
If that seems like not a good thing, another option is to
