[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
instead.

>    * 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.

Cheers,
-g

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2417248
Received on 2009-11-12 22:05:55 CET

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