From kde-core-devel  Thu Mar 31 13:57:10 2005
From: Adeodato =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sim=F3?= <asp16 () alu ! ua ! es>
Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2005 13:57:10 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: SVN timing
Message-Id: <20050331135710.GA4663 () chistera ! yi ! org>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=111228692327745

* Stephan Kulow [Thu, 31 Mar 2005 15:36:40 +0200]:
> Am Mittwoch 23 März 2005 12:42 schrieb Thiago Macieira:

  Hello,

> > 2) /work/work-branch vs /branches/work/work-branch 
> > vs /branches/appname/work-branch

> For branches I agree. We have 155 branches without unlabeled ones. That's already
> a lot and they are pretty hard to overview. But if you add /branches/appname you're
> not easing to find a branch. So I would split /branches into /branches/work and
> /branches/maintaince - this should split the list of branches enough and I can script
> it very easily to move the branches after the import.
> But so far this whole layout discussion is between you and me. No-one else seems
> to have an oppinion about it ;(

  In <200503301100.23395.thiago@kde.org>, Thiago mentioned this:

> Also, will the branches/tags be renamed on the server after import? For
> instance, will /branches/KDE_3_4_BRANCH become /branches/KDE/3.4?

  This wasn't commented on AFAICS, so I'd like to know your opinion
  about this proposal (IMHO, one that improves usability quite a bit).
  Also, emphasize the fact that the question mentions both branches and
  tags.

  Thanks,

-- 
Adeodato Simó
    EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
 
One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model.