[Xorg] Re: CVS access policy, branching/tagging, code review, etc.

[Keith Packard]

Around 15 o'clock on Mar 2, "Kaleb S. KEITHLEY" wrote:

> You'll have to define "normal" then because as I indicated this is 
> normal for *BSD.

I meant that I'd like to see HEAD contain the day-to-day hackings of the 
assembled geeks instead of having everyone share a common branch.  That 
way you just tell people 'get HEAD and compile it'.  

I think the CURRENT-STABLE-HEAD model makes a lot of sense for an
environment which is primarily about release engineering and not so much
involved in development.  It looks a lot like the unstable/testing/stable
system in Debian, but then Debian is a package-based environment, so you 
don't have source diffs moving across branches, but rather packages moving 
between 'releases'.

But, I've not seen this used in development environments I've been involved
in, so it seems 'weird' to me.  I suggest that without a compelling reason 
to use this, we take a straw poll and see which model people would feel 
most comfortable using.  If people have opinions, please post them and 
we'll have a better sense of the best thing to do for now.

-keith


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20040302/777f71f8/attachment.pgp>