[development] new CVS branch/tag conventions (was Re: tagadelic 'backport' for 4.7)

[Gary Feldman]

Gabor Hojtsy wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Gary Feldman wrote:
>> I must be missing something simple.  Why isn't DRUPAL-4-7 adequate 
>> for the branch?  Since there's no expectation of a 4.7.3.1 release, 
>> all 4.7 development ought to be on a single branch. Or is this a 
>> result of the idea that DRUPAL-4-7--1 is really going to become 
>> either 4.8 or 5.0, but since we don't know yet, it's being called 
>> DRUPAL-4-7--1?  If that's the case, then why is it necessary to have 
>> a number there (since again, there won't be more than one), so that 
>> it could be DRUPAL-4-7-NEXT?  (Yes, I've asked something similar 
>> before, but still haven't seen an explanation of why this wouldn't 
>> work.)
>
> Yes, Gary you are missing that we are talking about *contributions*. A 
> contrib module could have vastly improved new releases even though 
> Drupal has no new release yet. This is why a contrib module could need 
> more releases in the 4.7.x or 5.x space, and this is why it would need 
> possible branches in this space.
Thanks, that wasn't obvious.  I still tend to think of that sort of 
change to a contributed module being done in a developer's private 
sandbox, as well as being a straightforward upgrade, so it wouldn't 
occur to me that a branch would be needed.  I can see how it might be 
necessary at times (though something I'd try hard to avoid myself).

Gary