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

[Scott Bronson]

On Tue, 2004-01-27 at 14:54, Miles Bader wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 06:54:31PM +0000, Mark Thomas wrote:
> > Reorder `category--branch--version' to `category--version--branch'.  If we
> > are popularising microbranches they *are* subordinal to versions, unlike
> > the unrelated cartesian space that Tom has referred to before.
> 
> Christ man, _no they're not_.
> 
> All this crap (and specifically the above crap) was argued ad-nauseum on this
> list a few months ago, and I have no wish to repeat the experience.

I think that this is the start of the thread that Miles is referring to.

http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2003-09/msg00513.html

A very relevant quote by Tom:
http://mail.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-arch-users/2003-09/msg00516.html

<<<
It may be helpful not to think of a category as being divided first
into branches, then into versions, but instead as a category as being
the name of a two dimensional space:  BRANCH x VERSION

It's just a convention - one of two possible - that branch labels are
written to the left of version ids.
>>>