From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-12931-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 17582 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2003 01:31:07 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 17574 invoked from network); 5 Mar 2003 01:31:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO main.gmane.org) (80.91.224.249)
  by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 5 Mar 2003 01:31:06 -0000
Received: from root by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 18qNji-00057d-00
	for <gdb@sources.redhat.com>; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 02:30:22 +0100
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Received: from news by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 18qMtB-0001yv-00
	for <gmane-comp-gdb-devel@m.gmane.org>; Wed, 05 Mar 2003 01:36:05 +0100
From: Diego Novillo <dnovillo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [maint] Guidelines for experimental branches
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2003 01:31:00 -0000
Organization: Red Hat Canada, Ltd.
Message-ID: <slrnb6ahkh.e93.dnovillo@tornado.toronto.redhat.com>
References: <3E63E3D3.6070401@redhat.com> <3E648828.3080502@suse.cz>
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (Linux)
X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2

In article <3E648828.3080502@suse.cz>, Michal Ludvig wrote:
> Andrew Cagney wrote:
>> +@item @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branchpoint
>> +@itemx @var{owner}_@var{name}-@var{YYYYMMDD}-branch
>> +The branch point and corresponding branch tag.  @var{YYYYMMDD} is the
>> +date that the branch was created.  A branch is created using the
> 
> Is it necessary to have the date in the name of the branch? IMHO it's 
> fine for the branchpoint, as well as for mergepoints, but for the branch 
> itself it's useless. People could much better remember words than 
> 8-digits chunks and having to look on the webpage everytime, when I want 
> to check out a branch is boring.
>
If the branch is long lived, you may want to re-create it more than once
for performance reasons.  As you get farther and farther from the
branchpoint, CVS operations get increasingly slower.  If dates are too
long, you could also use 2-3 digit numbers.


Diego.