Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: Making microbranches popular

[Tom Lord]

    > From: Mirian Crzig Lennox <address@hidden>

    > Well, here's the thing: I would dearly love to sell my workplace on
    > the idea of ditching CVS for Arch.  However, that won't happen unless
    > Arch can support our version naming scheme, which is typically
    > [productname]-x.y-rel-z (for natural numbers x,y and z).  For example,
    > they want to be able to tag something as "2.1-alpha-4", "2.1-beta-3",
    > "2.1-rc5", and so on.  They most definitely are NOT interested in
    > saying "alpha-2.1.4", "beta-2.1.3", "rc-2.1.5", etc. because those
    > names have entirely different meanings to them, and to our customers
    > and beta sites.

    > And for what it's worth, I firmly agree.  Our version naming scheme
    > isn't uncommon, complicated or irregular; it's perfectly reasonable to
    > expect Arch to cope.  If it can't, we ought to fix it so it can.

Create a category which holds config files (the kind you use with
commands like `buildcfg').  You can name the config files after your
version names.

-t