[kde-guidelines] CVS

[Frans Englich]

On Friday 29 October 2004 07:18, zander at kde.org wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2004 at 02:09:09AM +0000, Frans Englich wrote:
> > On Thursday 28 October 2004 23:43, Lauri Watts wrote:
> > > If HEAD is the current version of guidelines, and guidelines by their
> > > nature, supercede previous versions, why would someone want to look at
> > > older versions?  I am editing this mail backwards, so "I already asked
> > > this later" heh, but please do explain.
>
> ...
>
> > Aaron wrote in the summary of the aKademy meeting:
> > "we expect them to be actively maintained and developed over time,
> > however, and therefore they will be versioned much as we do with our
> > software including having both a stable and a devel (HEAD) branch in CVS
> > for these guidelines."
> >
> > So.. I'm a little bit confused here.
>
> I think you are thinking in svn WAAY to much already; branhes to most
> means, well, branches. Not directories.

Right, I think we've misunderstood; my reasoning functions regardless of 
version system(AFAICT). My point was that, if we have multiple versions of 
the guidelines, and need to generate output from them, it could be practical 
to separate even the sources into different directories. But as said, I think 
regular branching/tagging is easiest. (so no problem)

> if at some point were are at svn, then I think a suggestion like yours is
> fine; have a complete duplicate tree (using svn copy or something) under a
> version number sounds like the way to go.  But as I said in a former post
> if the HEAD version is no where near finished; then why argue about where
> the BRANCH version goes?  You need a released HEAD in order to create a
> BRANCH, after all :-)
> Notice that svn allows you to move directories around quite cheaply; so
> this planning ahead is in no way a permanent decision if svn is really
> coming around. (news that is ehm, 'new' to me ;)
>
> The post from Aaron said versioning; and I believe you have taken that a
> bit over the top.

Right, I also think releasing versions per minor release is excessive -- doing 
it as we see fit is better(whatever that means). However, my point was to 
show that "people" thought we should have different versions, because my 
impression from Lauri was that we shouldn't at all.

Hence, if we will have different versions, it could be a good idea to have the 
directory layout take that into account now, instead of (redoing) later -- 
why and how is in the previous letter(s).

<snip>


Cheers,

		Frans