16 messages in com.perforce.perforce-userbranching question
FromSent OnAttachments
Kurt...@best.com11 May 1998 12:57 
Davi...@home.chat.net11 May 1998 14:18 
Kurt...@best.com11 May 1998 14:38 
Guid...@python.org11 May 1998 14:54 
Ping...@MIT.EDU11 May 1998 15:38 
Brad...@email.mot.comBrad_Appleton-GBDA00111 May 1998 15:45 
Step...@vance.com11 May 1998 17:14 
WesP...@xmission.com12 May 1998 00:48 
Kurt...@best.com14 May 1998 10:18 
WesP...@softweyr.com14 May 1998 10:53 
Mark...@glyphic.com14 May 1998 11:19 
Brad...@email.mot.comBrad_Appleton-GBDA00114 May 1998 11:43 
Davi...@home.chat.net14 May 1998 11:56 
Marc...@mpath.com14 May 1998 12:18 
Brad...@email.mot.comBrad_Appleton-GBDA00114 May 1998 12:30 
Davi...@home.chat.net14 May 1998 14:23 
Subject:branching question
From:Kurt...@best.com (Kurt@best.com)
Date:05/11/1998 12:57:26 PM
List:com.perforce.perforce-user

First, I am not our perforce admin, but I have an interest in seeing the source managed properly.

Because of our overlapping releases, we're discussing branching strategies again. It was suggested this morning that we branch (for example) 3.1 off the mainline while work continues in the 3.0 branch (3.0 changes are integrated to the mainline), then make 3.2 a branch off 3.1, and 3.3 a branch off 3.2, etc.

This feels like a bad idea to me, but that's not a good technical argument.

Is this in fact a bad idea? Why or why not?

Thanks!

---Kurt