On 2/5/07, Greg Knaddison - GVS <Greg@growingventuresolutions.com> wrote:
On 2/5/07, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb@2bits.com> wrote:
Up to now, I was using CVS to track Drupal 4.7 core and modules. The new system does complicate matters, since it is quite acceptable to do:
DRUPAL-5 as a branch DRUPAL-5--1-0 as a tag ... changes DRUPAL-5--1-1 as a tag
there should be a DRUPAL-5--2 branch from the same branch point as the DRUPAL-5 branch before this next step:
I agree that would make the matter less of an issue. However two points: 1. The new release system does not enforce a branch for the major number. I know because I used tags only for a 1.1 and 2.0 and the system just accepted it. 2. There is now more overhead per module for those who check it out. A directory per tag per module. Right now I just have: drupal/ drupal/HEAD drupal/HEAD/drupal drupal/HEAD/contributions drupal/47 drupal/47/drupal drupal/47/contributions drupal/5 drupal/5/drupal drupal/5/contributions And that is it. Under this scheme one has to maintain a sandbox directory for each branch of a module separately.
... changes
DRUPAL-5--2-0 as a tag
Please see my earlier post for clarification: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/development/2007-February/022380.html
I'm mostly representing dww's point of view on this idea.
If you do an update from CVS while changes are in but before the module is tagged you have the chance of getting unstable code.
Which has always been the case with the old system. Right? The old DRUPAL-4-7 branch of contrib isn't known to be stable so if you updated down that you could get anything (stable, unstable, buggy, etc.).
Regards, Greg
-- 2bits.com http://2bits.com Drupal development, customization and consulting.