Re: Action plan poll for DDP
Em Fri, 20 Feb 2004 11:46:29 -0500, Adam Di Carlo <firstname.lastname@example.org> escreveu:
> >> 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
> >> behaviour.)
> 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.
Indeed. But the way debian-doc's stuff was handled, AFAIK, HEAD was
built automatically for the main page.
> 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.
Cool for me, too. But I'd still prefer having something like a place
to upload releases or someway to say which tag is used as 'release'.
> 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
> implement it.
That would be good, but would that mean untagging the previous
last version before that?
email@example.com: Gustavo Noronha <http://people.debian.org/~kov>
Debian: <http://www.debian.org> * <http://www.debian-br.org>
"Não deixe para amanhã, o WML que você pode traduzir hoje!"