From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2151 invoked by alias); 19 Jan 2005 11:32:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact binutils-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: binutils-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2096 invoked from network); 19 Jan 2005 11:32:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 19 Jan 2005 11:32:25 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j0JBWPtr022139 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:32:25 -0500 Received: from pobox.surrey.redhat.com (pobox.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.10.17]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j0JBWOO09055 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 06:32:24 -0500 Received: from [172.31.0.98] (vpnuser4.surrey.redhat.com [172.16.9.4]) by pobox.surrey.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id j0JBWNeq014425 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:23 GMT Message-ID: <41EE474B.8080604@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 11:32:00 -0000 From: Nick Clifton User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (X11/20041206) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: binutils@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Branches in CVS repository? References: <200501150003.j0F03Wka006774@sirius.codesourcery.com> <41EB9645.4040409@redhat.com> <41EBEACC.3010001@codesourcery.com> <41EBEE05.8000105@codesourcery.com> <41EBF2F9.6030302@codesourcery.com> <200501171743.j0HHhDPh017758@greed.delorie.com> <41EBFAFF.7050205@codesourcery.com> <41ECDA84.1030605@redhat.com> <41EDF572.20705@codesourcery.com> <1106128925.27061.19.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> In-Reply-To: <1106128925.27061.19.camel@pc960.cambridge.arm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-01/txt/msg00242.txt.bz2 Hi Guys, > Richard Earnshaw wrote: > > Personally, I find the use of dates awkward. At any time after the > initial creation point the date is not much better than a random number, > and remembering what set of changes is associate with what date is > nigh-on impossible. I actually find them useful. Admittedly this is in the context of GCC, and RedHat supporting its customers, but if I see a branch that is say "CUSTOMER_FOO-gcc-990101" then I think "oh dear that is a very old branch, why haven't they upgraded ?", whereas if I see "CUSTOMER_BAR-gcc-050101" I think "hmm, they are using the latest sources and they still find bugs - this is going to be hard". (Not that I am a pessimist or anything"). Cheers Nick