[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: A tiny request for the repository move

From: Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 16:05:39 -0500

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 15:31, 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.

I think relative references would not include ".." such that it
reaches *out* of the root of the line of development. If you want to
do that, then I'd suggest a rooted path like ^/branches/upstream

>    * A "trunk" is not special; it's just another branch, the main
>      development branch by convention, but no more than that.

It *is* quite special. That's where everybody goes for the latest and coolest.

You can call it "just another branch". Or you could call it "trunk".


I'm not seeing the advantages of this, so I'm somewhere around -0.5 on it.


Received on 2009-11-12 22:05:55 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.