Branches in CVS repository?

[Richard Earnshaw]

On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 17:50, Mark Mitchell wrote:

> OK, here's an attempt.  Thoughts?  OK to commit?

+ 4. Document the branch:
+ 
+      Add a description of the branch to BRANCHES, and check that file
+      in.  All branch descriptions should be added to the HEAD revision
+      of the file; it doesn't help to modify BRANCHES on a branch!

The documentation needs to describe the commit policy and the 'owner' of
the branch -- commit policy might be a list of who can approve patches,
etc.  The owner makes it fully clear who owns the branch, ideally with a
name and contact address.

+ 
+ Please do not commit any patches to a branch you did not create
+ without the explicit permission of the person who created the branch.

'Branch owner' might be more appropriate here; or given the above
change, 'only changes consistent with the commit policy for the branch
may be checked in'.

It might be worth adding a further note that no code may be committed on
a branch that could not be legally distributed as part of a normal
public release, or something to that effect.  That doesn't imply that
the FSF would necessarily want to do that, but it does mean they could
if they so wanted.   Implication: if you don't want to permit that, then
it doesn't belong in the FSF source repository.

R.