Hello, On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 07:11:16AM +0100, [email protected] wrote: > 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...
OK, I'll do that. > (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...) Frankly speaking, I'm generally inclined to doubt the usefulness of this prefix, too. This is quite fortunate, since I can create a new branch ``unionmount'', thus both achieving a better name and creating a new branch of approved patches only. Regards, scolobb
