Re: Action plan poll for DDP
Gustavo Noronha Silva <email@example.com> writes:
> Em Sun, 15 Feb 2004 00:19:18 +0100, Osamu Aoki <firstname.lastname@example.org> escreveu:
>> > 1. I'm in favour of moving to alioth
>> > - I would like to have a clear separation on what is being
>> > developed and what is released on the CVS, maybe we
>> > should have the cvs for development and then migrate
>> > stuff to the ddp page manually
>> I think you should use "branch" capability of CVS. As long as you stay
>> away from HEAD branch, your development version in the CVS will not be
>> published. (I now copy development version from other CVS after
>> checking their consistency. Once alioth is up, I will change my
Osamu isn't really clear here. The way CVS works, the development
copy should be the HEAD and the branch should be for stable versions.
The mainline where development always must be the HEAD. This is
especially necessary if you have pretty active development.
> Nice idea, Osamu... I didn't know how to use that feature in CVS when
> I started using it for apt-howto and it somehow did not occur to me
> that I could do it 'till now, even after using it elsewhere.
> Guess I need to review the procedures of working on apt-howto.
Personally I find branching to be far too much work. If you simply
want a way to indicate which version in CVS is the released version,
you should use CVS tags. This is a widely established practice; e.g.,
this is how cvs-buildpackage works.
Unfortunately cvs-buildpackage doesn't provide a tag meaning, "latest
release". For instance, 'debian_version_latest'. So we'd have to
come up with such a tag and implement it and get all the authors to
Frankly I don't think it will ever happen. It's overcomplicated.
.....Adam Di Carlo....email@example.com.....<URL:http://www.debian.org/>