This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [maint] Guidelines for experimental branches

From: Michal Ludvig <mludvig at suse dot cz>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 12:04:08 +0100
Subject: Re: [maint] Guidelines for experimental branches
Organization: SuSE CR
References: <3E63E3D3.6070401@redhat.com>

Andrew Cagney wrote:

+ at item @var{owner}_ at var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
+ at itemx @var{owner}_ at var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch
+The branch point and corresponding branch tag.  @var{YYYYMMDD} is the
+date that the branch was created.  A branch is created using the

Is it necessary to have the date in the name of the branch? IMHO it's fine for the branchpoint, as well as for mergepoints, but for the branch itself it's useless. People could much better remember words than 8-digits chunks and having to look on the webpage everytime, when I want to check out a branch is boring. I believe that calling your branch cagney_offbyone-branch would be descriptive enough and wouldn't collide with anything.

Well, just my 2 cents.

Michal Ludvig
--
* SuSE CR, s.r.o     * mludvig at suse dot cz
* (+420) 296.545.373 * http://www.suse.cz

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [maint] Guidelines for experimental branches
  - From: Diego Novillo

References:
- [maint] Guidelines for experimental branches
  - From: Andrew Cagney

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]