On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 05:45:50PM +0200, Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 16.06.2014, at 17:19, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > I was trying to understand what _else_ you're saying its for,  :-),
> > and why hacking version-names with one-word "labels" that have nothing
> > to do with the actual ancestry is a good idea for the community at
> > large to adopt?
> 
> There is nothing to "adopt". This is how MC was designed to handle branches.
> 

We rely on this for maintaining the VMMaker branches, and it works well.

The only new thing that I expect we may need is the ability to specify
the name of the update map to use for a given branch. For example, the
update map in the VMMaker project specifies the configuration for the
trunk (interpreter) branch, and I use that for VMMaker class>>updateFromServer.
It might be nice if the oscog branch could also have an #updateFromServer,
presumably specifying the name of a different update map.

Aside from that, I can't think of any problems with the branch management
in MC. We certainly have a need to do something like this to support Spur,
so we may as well use what works.

Dave