On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Branko Cibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> Since we're going to move the repository ... and twiddle it to include
> old CVS history ... and change version numbers ... I thought this would
> be an auspicious time to make another tiny change. It's all about
> setting a good example, and promoting best practices in the (new) community.
>
> The request:
>
> s:trunk:branches/dev:g
>
> Rationale:
>
> * Having all tags and branches at the same relative depth in the
> repository is a good for consistency, and also for relative
> references (e.g., if you import some code into repo/upstream, then
> your relative references to that code can all be ../../upstream
> from all tags and branches, and don't need to be changed when
> tagging a special trunk.
> * A "trunk" is not special; it's just another branch, the main
> development branch by convention, but no more than that.
> * It all looks more sexy and symmetric.
>
> I volunteer to write the necessary magic scripts to tweak all paths,
> mergeinfo, etc. in the dumpfile before we import it into the new repo.
> Could make such moves a feature of svndumpfilter, most likely.
Does this request have some merit? Sure. But come on, we have enough
to do already. While it would be better to do this now if we are ever
going to do it, I'd say we will likely just never do it. At a
minimum, we would have to delay the plans to move the repository until
we could properly test this. I just do not see the value in doing
this when looking at the big picture of everything we need to do.
There is nothing about our own development practices where we would
get any benefit from this. The only real benefit would be, as you
say, setting an example for others. I'd argue that editing the book
would be a better way to do that.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2417267
Received on 2009-11-12 22:39:56 CET