From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LyBWe-00071R-TU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:04:36 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LyBWZ-0006w3-SW
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:04:36 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=50562 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LyBWZ-0006w0-MG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:04:31 -0400
Received: from bsdimp.com ([199.45.160.85]:53066 helo=harmony.bsdimp.com)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <imp@bsdimp.com>) id 1LyBWZ-0007Bj-0X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 26 Apr 2009 17:04:31 -0400
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:02:34 -0600 (MDT)
Message-Id: <20090426.150234.2106236745.imp@bsdimp.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] branch and tag names
From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
In-Reply-To: <8B2E6405-6772-474F-9B8F-DB1A1689CA2D@web.de>
References: <49F4A162.4000604@redhat.com> <49F4BAB7.3010501@codemonkey.ws>
	<8B2E6405-6772-474F-9B8F-DB1A1689CA2D@web.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: andreas.faerber@web.de
Cc: avi@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

In message: <8B2E6405-6772-474F-9B8F-DB1A1689CA2D@web.de>
            Andreas_F=E4rber <andreas.faerber@web.de> writes:
: =

: Am 26.04.2009 um 21:49 schrieb Anthony Liguori:
: =

: > Avi Kivity wrote:
: >> Can we move to
: >>
: >> v0.10.0
: >> stable/0.10
: >
: > v0.10.0 as a tag looks good to me.
: >
: > stable/0.10 feels a little awkward.  I never have gotten quite used=
  =

: > to this style of tagging (using file-like hierarchies).
: >
: > I'm not super opinionated about it either way.  I'm interested to  =

: > see what other people think.
: =

: +1 for v0.10.2
: =

: I don't see the point of having stable/0.10 though. Why do we need  =

: multiple stable? stable will be branched as v0.10.x, then after the  =

: last 0.10.x release, stable can be hard-reset to master and branched =
 =

: as v0.11.x when ready, and so on.

It allows people to grab the historical branches if they want...

Warner