Jeff Squyres wrote:
> That's fine, too. I don't really care -- /public already exists. We
> can simply rename it to /tmp-public.
Let's do that. It should (more or less) address all concerns that have
> 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