That's fine, too. I don't really care -- /public already exists. We
can simply rename it to /tmp-public.
On Aug 31, 2007, at 8:52 AM, Ralph Castain wrote:
>>> Why not make /tmp-public and /tmp-private?
>>> Leave /tmp alone. Have all new branches made in one of the two new
>>> directories, and as /tmp branches are slowly whacked, we can
>>> (eventually) get rid of /tmp.
>> I'm fine with that. If no one else objects, let's bring this up on
>> Tuesday to make sure everyone is aware and then pick a date to rename
>> everything (requires a global sync since it will affect anyone who
>> has a current /tmp checkout).
> Or, to make life really simple, just leave /tmp alone and private.
> create a tmp-public for branches that are not private. That way,
> those of us
> with private tmp branches are unaffected, no global sync's are
> Or perhaps that is -too- simple.... ;-)
> devel mailing list