Re: svn modules (was Re: Features and release dates)

On Wed, May 01, 2002 at 04:40:16PM -0500, Eric Gillespie wrote:
>...
> I don't like the text-file based modules. CVS does that and it
> drives me nuts. Subversion doesn't really need to duplicate this
> feature. All that is necessary is a kind of symlink in the repo.

Unfortunately, symlinks in the repo aren't enough. I believe that Subversion
will be more multiple-repository-prone than CVS. As an example:

The ASF has one CVS repository, which contains modules for each project:
httpd-2.0, apr, and apr-util to name a few. However, in SVN land, I believe
we're have a separate SVN repository for each project. I think the projects
will want their own directory organization (trunk, branches, tags, whatever)
and their own (partitioned) set of log messages / revision changes.

As a result, cross-repository "modules" are quite important for SVN. It also
means that when the ASF switches over to SVN, we can set up a "module" for
Subversion that references the ASF SVN repositories.

The strategy for modules, as outlined in the issue, easily supports
cross-repository modules.

>...
> This is more general-purpose and much more flexible than modules.
> What does everyone think?

Hard and soft links in the repository will be extremely handy. As long as
your patches for implementing them come in digestible chunks, then I don't
see any obvious reason that we would /not/ include them before 1.0. Even if
you don't get them all done by 1.0, we could still include partial,
incremental support for links.

Cheers,
-g

-- 
Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org