ugh, sorry, I've been busy this week and didn't see a timeout, so a
response got delayed.
I really don't like this format. public doesn't have any meaning to
it (tmp suggests, well, it's temporary). I'd rather have /tmp/ and /
tmp/private or something like that. Or /tmp/ and /tmp/public/.
Either way :/.
On Aug 17, 2007, at 6:21 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
> I didn't really put this in RFC format with a timeout, but no one
> objected, so I have created:
> Developers should feel free to use this tree for public temporary
> branches. Specifically:
> - use /tmp if your branch is intended to be private
> - use /public if your branch is intended to be public
> On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:50 AM, Jeff Squyres wrote:
>> Right now all branches under /tmp are private to the OMPI core group
>> (e.g., to allow unpublished academic work). However, there are
>> definitely cases where it would be useful to allow public branches
>> when there's development work that is public but not yet ready for
>> the trunk. Periodically, we go an assign individual permissions to /
>> tmp branches (like I just did to /tmp/vt-integration), but it would
>> be easier if we had a separate tree for public "tmp" branches.
>> Would anyone have an objection if I added /public (or any better name
>> that someone can think of) for tmp-style branches, but that are open
>> for read-only access to the public?
>> Jeff Squyres
>> Cisco Systems
>> devel mailing list
> Jeff Squyres
> Cisco Systems
> devel mailing list