Hi, On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote: > On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, [email protected] > wrote:
> > While I do think that such main a "unionmount" branch is probably a > > good idea, it should contain only the "approved" patches; while > > those still in development would better be placed in true topic > > branches... > > OK. I'll stick to this in the future. Shall I move the yet > not-completely-approved patches away from master-unionmount into > corresponding topic branches? I think so. However, it's probably better not to change the existing master-unionmount branch, but rather drop it alltogether and create a new one with a different name once you actually start adding the approved patches. Otherwise, people who already checked out the original branch will get in trouble... (Also, I still don't get the point of the "master-" prefix. This is not CVS, where we needed to remember where the branch comes from, as it was hard to figure it out from history; and it was crucial to know, because merging had to be handled in a strictly controlled manner to work at all...) -antrik-
