On 10/16/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> "Ben Collins-Sussman" <sussman@red-bean.com> writes:
> > So now you're using svnmerge.py to carefully keep your 'checkpoint' in
> > sync with trunk. At this point, how is it any different from a
> > feature branch? Is it just the fact that you don't want to write
> > structured log messages or have people review the code?
> >
> > I guess I can understand using /checkpoints as a general anarchy
> > dumping-ground to make backups of patches, but this sort of blurs the
> > line. Why not just make a feature branch and ask folks not to review
> > it yet?
>
> Well, you doesn't always know when you start something how long it's
> going to take, or how many commits, etc.
Do we have a policy / social issue with 1 commit branches? If not, why
not just start a branch if you don't know? (not knowing implies
/probably/ more than 1 commit...)
> I think it's fine to move from /checkpoints into /branches, when
> something turns out to need a typical feature branch.
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Oct 16 17:24:02 2007