On 2013-03-18, at 8:32 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> No, I think I will just change it to match the rest of the world.
>
> And then unplug the Ethernet cable and go sailing for a month ;-)
A bit less glibly, it might be time to lay down the anchor for the 1.6-branch.
I think we have a few mor
On 2013-03-18, at 8:53 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> 1.6-branch
1.5. Doh.
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
>A bit less glibly, it might be time to lay down the anchor for the
>1.6-branch. I think we have a few more 'breakage' things in the queue
>we've been waiting to inflict on the masses ...
Maybe I'm not up on my nautical termology, and I know you sent out a
revision that said "1.5", but I'm confus
On 2013-03-18, at 9:29 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> Maybe I'm not up on my nautical termology, and I know you sent out a
> revision that said "1.5", but I'm confused. Is it you're thinking that
> 1.5 is getting a bit long in the tooth (was released in June of last
> year) and you want to think abo
With 1.6 approaching, now is a good time to rationalize our repo tagging a bit.
What I'm thinking is we get everything for 1.6 onto the head, then cut a
RELENG_1_6 branch. That will become the basis for the 1.6 release. In the
branch we only do what is necessary to get 1.6 out the door. I.e.
>With 1.6 approaching, now is a good time to rationalize our repo tagging
>a bit.
>
>What I'm thinking is we get everything for 1.6 onto the head, then cut a
>RELENG_1_6 branch. That will become the basis for the 1.6 release. In
>the branch we only do what is necessary to get 1.6 out the door. I
On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> Well ... we were all over the place, part of that was the limitations
> imposed by CVS branch naming before.
I know. I have dealt with them all over the years :-P (RCS, CVS, svn, git, p4,
hg, ...)
I just want a bit of consistency. Something
>I just want a bit of consistency. Something that people can look at 20
>years down the road and (hopefully) immediately understand.
That's fine ... so what's wrong with the scheme we used for 1.5?
--Ken
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu
On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> That's fine ... so what's wrong with the scheme we used for 1.5?
It was just a wee bit scatter-shot. I'm looking for a more consistent naming
scheme.
What I suggest loosely follows the FreeBSD release model in their repo. But we
use git, v
On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:31 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> That's fine ... so what's wrong with the scheme we used for 1.5?
More so, it was the '1.5' vs 1.5-RC*. Git doesn't make clear the distinctions
between a tag and a branch. Because git doesn't really have a distinction
between them. What I'm
>More so, it was the '1.5' vs 1.5-RC*. Git doesn't make clear the
>distinctions between a tag and a branch. Because git doesn't really
>have a distinction between them. What I'm proposing is a naming scheme
>to help differentiate between the two.
One shows up under "git tag". The other shows u
On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> One shows up under "git tag". The other shows up under "git branch".
> Assuming we do annotated tags, you can even use git cat-file to
> distinguish between the two even easier. I'm having a hard time
> understanding the problem.
In git, a ta
On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
> (The reason I am being a pain about this was that I thought I had a
> reasonable naming scheme ALREADY in place for 1.5).
Branches v. tags are ALWAYS a pain in the ass. One of the reasons why I don't
enjoy git a whole lot ...
signature.asc
Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
> In git, a tag is just a label on the hash for a particular commit.
>
> A branch, OTOH, creates a cut point that becomes an anchor for diverted
> development.
and in those ways, git is no different from cvs, and need not be feared.
git is actually fairly simple once yo
On Mar 7, 2014, at 7:42 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:
> it is actually fairly simple once you dive in.
You dont want that conversation with the folks at the last shop I worked at.
But, okay, I quit ;-)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
Actually, I give up. It's time to bail out and just say 'what the hell' :-)
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
___
Nmh-workers mailing list
Nmh-workers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/nmh-workers
>Actually, I give up. It's time to bail out and just say 'what the hell' :-)
Sigh. My only objection was to changing the names from the ones I used
for branching and tagging 1.5. Everything else (picking a stopping
point, release branching, etc etc) was fine. I did all that same stuff
for 1.5.
Lyndon Nerenberg writes:
> On Mar 7, 2014, at 5:13 PM, Ken Hornstein wrote:
>
>> Well ... we were all over the place, part of that was the limitations
>> imposed by CVS branch naming before.
>
> I know. I have dealt with them all over the years :-P (RCS, CVS, svn, git,
> p4, hg, ...)
>
> I jus
18 matches
Mail list logo
