Blair Zajac wrote:
> Peter Samuelson wrote:
>> [Greg Stein]
>>> To clarify/expand... Projects at the ASF load their code into:
>>> If there is no subproject, then that portion is elided (as we will).
>>> In this case, PROJNAME corresponds to the Top Level Project name,
>>> which will be "subversion" for us.
>> This is almost OT, but given that we will be going to the trouble to
>> dump / reload the repository and re-check-out all our working copies,
>> can someone remind me why we have a 'branches' directory? Is it just
>> to preserve the ability to name a branch 'trunk' or 'tags'? In all
>> these years I've never figured out why conventional wisdom says that
>> all branches except trunk need a separate subdir.
>> (Especially if ^/branches/1.6.x becomes ^/subversion/branches/1.6.x,
>> it would be nice to shorten that and save some typing.)
> Are you suggesting the branches are siblings of the trunk then? If so, then why
> not have the tags at the same level then? That would get messy then and you
> couldn't tell a branch from a tag then.
Actually, since you ask -- yes, branches should be siblings of trunk;
but in their own directory. Our proposed trunk/ branches/ tags/ is
broken IMHO because it makes trunk somehow special (it's not), makes
relative symbolic links to come common tree not work on branches and
tags, etc. etc. For projects I work on, I've long proposed a simpler
structure with just branches/ and tags/, and mainline development
happening on, e.g., branches/mainline.
But I strongly disagree with the idea of historically (more like
hysterically) renaming all our branches or anything else in the
repository in any way. A fine example we'd make for everyone if we went
changing our history! And we'd quickly go insane, too.
Received on 2009-11-10 01:47:46 CET