On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 20:03, Markus Heidelberg <markus.heidelb...@web.de> wrote:
> When creating this branch, maybe at the same time I'll rename the > feature branches to something of the shape "feat/relativenumber", > because it's getting complex with more feature branches and I want to be > able to clearly distinguish these branches from 'vim' 'master' and > 'vim-with-runtime'. Good idea. > This repo is still under development, so I think renaming is not fatal, > or is anybody screaming? However as long as I don't rebase, it should > not be a big deal for a user, and I do not yet rebase. Personally, I would not even mind if the repo were to be redone completely if it's cleaner in the longer run, so no screaming from me. > I first thought about naming your branch "test/join-lines-improved" or > so, but I think I'll put it in the "feat" namespace. Any better idea for > the name after the "feat/"? 'feature'? :) > Wait, another thought: how do you plan to handle this branch? Should it > be stable (in terms of git) or do you want to rebase against the latest > 'vim' everytime? For stable branches, we could use the "feat" namespace, > for heavily under development or rebased for other reasons, the "test" > namespace. For getting testers, not rebasing is the better choice, but > for sending patches out, it may be easier to rebase. > OK, that's your choice, but I'd like to know it. If in "feat", then I > can ponder to include it in 'master'. That's a pretty good idea. Though I would suggest fix/ feature/ development/ though fix/ prolly will not be needed, ever. Patchset authors could then do both active development and stable releases in the repo. Richard --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist. For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
