[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft)
From: |
Harald Meland |
Subject: |
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft) |
Date: |
Mon, 04 Oct 2004 01:22:40 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.1006 (Gnus v5.10.6) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) |
[Thomas Lord]
> > > tla--devo--X.Y+1--base-0
> > > is a tag from tla--hub--X.Y
>
> because the tla--devo--X.Y+1 version may be created long after the hub
> already has revisions.
Thanks for the clarification.
> > Additionally, I think the current split between category ("stds") and
> > branch ("rel-src-mgmt") somehow "feels wrong"; it can be construed to
> > imply that if there are several categories of standards documents,
> > they will all live in the same Arch category, but in different,
> > non-Arch-related branches.
Re-reading the paragraph above, I see that the wording could have been
clearer; by "non-Arch-related branches" I was thinking of the case of
several branches between which no Arch merges have occured.
I did not try to imply that there would occur branches in an official
GNU Arch project archive that were semantically unrelated to the Arch
project -- though I can see how my wording could be taken to mean
that. Sorry.
> My intention is to write a series of coding and participation
> standards for those projects which I maintain, that's all.
I'd guessed as much. What I'm trying to say is that if
e.g. "stds--rel-src-mgmt" and "stds--hackerlab" branches appear in the
same archive, and represent completely disparate (arch-merge-wise)
version-controlled trees, that would conflict with my current
understanding of the "Best practice for using the Arch namespace".
It might well be my current understanding that is wrong, but as I
consider it quite likely that I will look to the GNU Arch project when
I try to decide how best to use the Arch namespace for my own
projects, having an incorrect understanding could prove to be
problematic. :-)
Cheers,
--
Harald
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), (continued)
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), James Blackwell, 2004/10/03
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Matthew Dempsky, 2004/10/03
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Harald Meland, 2004/10/03
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Andrew Suffield, 2004/10/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Thomas Lord, 2004/10/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Andrew Suffield, 2004/10/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Thomas Lord, 2004/10/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Thomas Lord, 2004/10/04
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Thomas Lord, 2004/10/04
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] NEW POLICIES (draft), Aaron Bentley, 2004/10/04