Well, I've learned something today! I wonder if I can fit my other foot in
my mouth at the same time...

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 12:33 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:

> Interesting naming scheme; is that something we should "document" in
> MCVersionName?
>
> Also, just to clarify our words, MC _does_ support branches in the
> domain, just not names for them.  But in terms of the ancestry, you
> can unlimited branching, which could be rendered if the tools were
> improved to do that..  Adding a name to something can often be done
> via external annotation, notwithstanding this naming scheme..
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Colin Putney <colin at wiresong.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Use some false initials that name the branch, and start its version
> numbers
> >> from e.g. 1.  So I name my open-source Cog versions VMMaker-oscog.N.
>  The
> >> package still has my initials as author.  David is using
> >> VMMaker-oscog.dtl.N, etc.
> >
> > Actually, MC does have some support for branching. If you use the
> > following convention, MC will do the "right" thing - group the
> > branched versions together in the UI, automatically suggest a version
> > name that's on a branch, and still allow you to merge between
> > branches. The naming convention is:
> >
> > <package>.<branch>-<initials>.<id>
> >
> > So if Eliot were using the standard convention, his versions would be
> > named like this:
> >
> > VMMaker.oscog-eem.147
> >
> > Colin
> >
> >
>
>


-- 
Casey Ransberger
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20110416/051290df/attachment.htm