On Sun, Aug 13, 2000 at 12:42:00PM -0400, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > However, I do wonder if a single directory in a well-defined
> > location relative to the working area might not be a reasonable
> > alternative. I'm not compelled by the ".. you can just copy this
> > subdir" line of reasoning, because non-trivial projects have
> > cross-subdir dependencies anyway. If you want a consistent build,
> > you either dup the whole tree or nothing.
> "There might be cross-subdir dependencies in the versioned data" is a
> lame reason to rule out having independent subdirs. There are lots of
> cases where subdirs are independent, at least for particular uses.
Note that SVN has globally serialized revision numbers (change sets).
Which means that there has to be a chunk of metadata that does the
serializing, and it has to be per tree.
Bitkeeper went down a series of rabbit holes trying to do change sets
and detachable subdirs at the same time. It simply doesn't work. If
you need detachable subdirs, you should create separate 'projects' for
each directory, and accept that there won't be a link between all the
components of a change that touches multiple directories.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:06 2006