From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Artur Malabarba Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Naming scheme for branches which will not be merged. Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:13:50 +0000 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113d4438d7ab580509f8ede2 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1418339725 26487 80.91.229.3 (11 Dec 2014 23:15:25 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 11 Dec 2014 23:15:25 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: Stefan Monnier Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Fri Dec 12 00:15:18 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1XzCvs-0005Nh-6g for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Fri, 12 Dec 2014 00:14:04 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:54599 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XzCvp-00029x-B4 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:14:01 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50698) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XzCvl-00029s-Qx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:13:58 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XzCve-00017I-Th for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:13:57 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-oi0-x231.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231]:54018) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XzCve-000173-Oz for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 18:13:50 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id i138so4480385oig.22 for ; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:13:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=d7cXOrCmQiNPFiPGIxBq6K0rOwKJopljwoWavfM8LX4=; b=AXsv+eDF9ApU00N+yl/kDVbDneJX9Lq95Qx1wy1+02geuf/E0oxATdruiwt4+s543N kWkfHQPseLbgd63hNN+9XC7CtaG8TV2beOccIpYyRArThxLWfBmmDjzVJvMdkRkDNs61 sq5hPsDsd2SrY28BizUjLIBMUXVYO7xdKYc4DVNe+ORDuPOEV/8YNRR5C6EoX28/gs3M 5LHR2in5ArszAvkEsLE90VztHGMSrjAzM+geKmAFR2+kbUAN2PJq8oltoC+0daJ3qxzD SOmJLoln81mkpXBPPcz2lJBoIB8ChlJaXhn/sX93amtcbMjrmZfpdUtqGYkdzJbQmgVL FAgw== X-Received: by 10.202.97.9 with SMTP id v9mr7779176oib.34.1418339630424; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:13:50 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.76.154.106 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:13:50 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.76.154.106 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Dec 2014 15:13:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Google-Sender-Auth: w9hGsuWkWIRV-22Pweh5w7HPh0g X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:4003:c06::231 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:179846 Archived-At: --001a113d4438d7ab580509f8ede2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 11 Dec 2014 17:29, "Stefan Monnier" wrote: > > > What naming scheme should we use? Either prefix the branch name with > > something really obvious, like =E2=80=9Cdont-merge/BRANCH-NAME=E2=80=9D= , so that > > people who unaware of this convention don't make that mistake. Or > > prefix it with any of the usual words that denote in-development, such > > as =E2=80=9Cdev/BRANCH-NAME=E2=80=9D. > > I vote against `dont-merge', and propose `scratch' as another contender. Oh, I like that! --001a113d4438d7ab580509f8ede2 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 11 Dec 2014 17:29, "Stefan Monnier" <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca> wrote= :
>
> > What naming scheme should we use? Either prefix the branch name w= ith
> > something really obvious, like =E2=80=9Cdont-merge/BRANCH-NAME=E2= =80=9D, so that
> > people who unaware of this convention don't make that mistake= . Or
> > prefix it with any of the usual words that denote in-development,= such
> > as =E2=80=9Cdev/BRANCH-NAME=E2=80=9D.
>
> I vote against `dont-merge', and propose `scratch' as another = contender.

Oh, I like that!

--001a113d4438d7ab580509f8ede2--