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