Re: [dev] Re: [tools-dev] Re: [dev] Mercurial-Implementation: OOo domain developer public keys

Hi,

since "feature branch" does not seem to be feasible for all branches, 
what about just using the term "branch" for what we now call a CWS? A 
"feature branch" could then describe a CWS where (mainly) a feature is 
being implemented, while a "bugfix branch" could describe a branch where 
bugs are being fixed. Btw., personally I am not sure whether we need 
these more detailed definitions.

And since "release branch" also seems to have its problems, why not use 
the term "codeline" for our current MWSs?

Regards,

Jörg


Jens-Heiner Rechtien schrieb:
> Hi Jan,
> 
> "release branch" is fine with me, but DEV300 is exactly not a "release
> branch". "Trunk" doesn't sound right as well. "development branch" might
> work.
> 
> I tend to call a MWS nowadays a "major code line" but that's kinda ugly
> as well.
> 
> For the term CWS it's even more difficult: a CWS is much more for us
> than just a "feature branch" and it might actually not contain a feature
> at all.
> 
> I'm all for a more streamlined jargon, but it might be not that easy to
> find something which is precise and concise and universally
> understandably at the same time.
> 
> Suggestions for a coherent nomenclature are welcome!
> 
> Heiner
> 
> Jan Holesovsky wrote:
>> Hi Heiner,
>>
>> On Friday 28 August 2009, Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote:
>>
>>> Please contact me if you have problems, suggestions etc.
>> Actually, I have a suggestion ;-)
>>
>> Do you think - with the switch to Mercurial - would it be possible to stop 
>> using the 'CWS' and 'MWS' terminology, and instead switch to the commonly 
>> used 'feature branch' and 'release branch' terms?
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Kendy