Re: [Sablevm-developer] suggestion: sablevm developer doc

[Chris P. <chr...@ma...>]

Grzegorz B. Prokopski wrote:

>W li=B6cie z wto, 18-03-2003, godz. 01:17, Prof. Etienne M. Gagnon pisze=
:=20
> =20
>
>>On Mon, Mar 17, 2003 at 03:53:20PM -0500, Chris Pickett wrote:
>>   =20
>>
>>>How about . . . we just have a development branch and the main trunk. =

>>>Anyone can hack away on the development branch (obviously trying not t=
o=20
>>>break things), and then once in a while Etienne merges changes into th=
e=20
>>>main trunk.  Or some other such multi-developer version control idiom.=

>>>     =20
>>>
>>The problem, with CVS, is that when you add something new on a branch,
>>it is considered as head and thus shows up in the main trunk and in
>>the Changelog.
>>   =20
>>
>Are you sure? CVS docs say sth. rather opposite, see
>http://www.loria.fr/~molli/cvs/doc/cvs_5.html#SEC49
>
>"CVS allows you to isolate changes onto a separate line of development,
> known as a branch. When you change files on a branch, those changes do
> not appear on the main trunk or other branches."
>
>Projects like Mozilla use CVS in the model of HEAD (unstable,
>development version) and branches (stable releases). If CVS weren't
>suitable for this - would they use it?
> =20
>

I kind of like the Mozilla model of development.  I think it makes more=20
sense than having a development branch, actually.  It says, "If you want =

a stable release, don't check out from CVS but rather get a tarball. =20
And if you really want to check out the sources in the tarball from the=20
release branch, you can."

CVS may have problems but then again 99% of projects use it so it can't=20
be that severely broken.

Chris