Re: unionmount branches

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:10:42PM +0200, Sergiu Ivanov wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 06:46:49AM +0200, olafBuddenhagen@gmx.net
> wrote:

> > While I do think that such main a "unionmount" branch is probably a
> > good idea, it should contain only the "approved" patches; while
> > those still in development would better be placed in true topic
> > branches...
> 
> OK.  I'll stick to this in the future.  Shall I move the yet
> not-completely-approved patches away from master-unionmount into
> corresponding topic branches?

I think so. However, it's probably better not to change the existing
master-unionmount branch, but rather drop it alltogether and create a
new one with a different name once you actually start adding the
approved patches. Otherwise, people who already checked out the original
branch will get in trouble...

(Also, I still don't get the point of the "master-" prefix. This is not
CVS, where we needed to remember where the branch comes from, as it was
hard to figure it out from history; and it was crucial to know, because
merging had to be handled in a strictly controlled manner to work at
all...)

-antrik-