Hi all, A while ago I was discussing the "stable" branch for M5 with Niels, and we came up with the idea to have a "continuous", "configuration free" stable branch, to ease the life of developers/team members that prefer not to live on the (bleeding) edge of novel and exciting technologies. Basically, what the ground idea is, is that when you check out the "stable" branch, that you will always get the latest stable branch. In ASCII-grafix: HEAD o=======================o============================~ \ 1.0 \ 2.0 stable \_______+______+_____ \______+______+______+__ rc_1 rc_2 rc_3 rc_1 rc_2 rc_3 This image is not very different from the current state, but for the 1.0 and the 2.0 release branches, two separate branch names are used: stable-1_0 and stable-2_0. This makes that people who checked out stable-1_0 never get the "next" stable, but instead stay frozen with stable-1_0. The basic idea we had is that people get "upgraded" to the latest stable if they use the "stable" branch, such that they automatically get the latest and greatest, but stable whatever product. For assuring correct tracability a number of tags can be set on the branch, of course. Technically speaking, CVS allows to "force" a branch to be created that already existed, thereby achieving the idea of having a "stable" branch as described above. I'm in favour of such branch, as I think it solves a number of problems with the ever moving branch, and eases CVS use for many of us. It is also easier to remember, as I personally always mix up the captitals, hyphens and underscores. Now we are at the edge of a big CVS move (are we still?), I thought may be it's a good idea to use this strategy for all our modules now. Any thoughts on or complaints against such branch usage?