Branko Cibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> writes:
> 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:
> * 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.
> * A "trunk" is not special; it's just another branch, the main
> development branch by convention, but no more than that.
> * It all looks more sexy and symmetric.
> I volunteer to write the necessary magic scripts to tweak all paths,
> mergeinfo, etc. in the dumpfile before we import it into the new repo.
> Could make such moves a feature of svndumpfilter, most likely.
That is kind of sexy. It implies updating the book too, and there's a
lot of other code in the world that expects the old convention... but
you can't make an omelet without breaking some clichés, so whatever.
Please, though: "branches/trunk" not "branches/dev". Trunk is the term
of art for the main development branch. Everyone knows what it means.
When people are browsing over a directory and they see a "trunk" subdir,
they won't have to wonder.
Or if you don't like "trunk", then "master", to match git. But for
goodness' sake, let's not set Yet Another Gratuitously Different
Standard here... :-)
Received on 2009-11-12 22:11:44 CET