On Tuesday 04 March 2008 16:23:45 Adrian Schröter wrote:
However we agreed on * using <maintainedin> instead of <upstreamproject> to avoid confusing with real source upstream. We ask for review or better proposal for the tag from Klaas :)
I would suggest to use <origin/> instead of <maintainedin/>. As some of you know my weakness to find usefull names I am absolutely open to renames. Go ahead, but please make sure to hold the Wikipage consistent.
I also think that this feature becomes much more powerful and useful if it's not only thought in context of externals contributing to Factory, but as a generic branch tracking functionality. Yes, a generic branch functionality is also nice, not talking about it in
On Mittwoch, 5. März 2008, Cornelius Schumacher wrote: the first place does not mean that we do not want it but that it is not in the focus atm - I am still single core ;-) I agree that a very general branch functionality is cool.
It can be very helpful to be able to find out after copying (or branching) projects and/or packages where they came from, i.e. where the original data lives. I expect that *all* changes to packages are recorded in the history, also branching etc. The history needs to give a clear picture of the whole live of the package.
Thanks for the comments, Klaas -- Klaas Freitag Architect OPS/IPD SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - Nuernberg --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+help@opensuse.org