Glenn E. Sieb wrote:
...
> What we'd like to be able to do is have a tree that looks like:
>
> Finance
> |-blah1
> | |-trunk
> | |-tags
> | |-branches
> |-blah2
> | |-trunk
> | |-tags
> | |-branches
> |-blah3
> | |-trunk
> | |-tags
> | |-branches
...
> We are curious if we can use this kind of layout and be able to do
> things like branch all of Finance in one fell swoop. So that blah1,
> blah2 and blah3 all get branched to 2.0, let's say?
>
> It doesn't seem clear to me that this would work.. my guess is we'd
> still have to branch each sub-project, but I'm hoping to be proven
> wrong. :)
I believe you're are right :-(.
Branches are copies. In this case, you'd have to copy to three
different branch root directories (i.e. Finance/blah[1-3]/branches),
which takes three separate commands.
In my opinion, the only reason this arrangement would be appropriate
would be if you expect blah1, blah2, and blah3 to be independent (i.e.
out of synch) with each other as far as version and branches are
concerned. The fact that you're even considering having to branch them
at the same time suggests that that's not the case. I'd suggest instead
using:
Finance/
|- trunk/
| |- blah1
| |- blah2
| |- blah3
|- branches/
| |- blah1
| |- blah2
| |- blah3
|- tags/
| |- blah1
| |- blah2
| |- blah3
Gary
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 12 19:13:06 2004