Branko Cibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> writes:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
>> 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.
> Term of art? Funny I never came across it until I joined this project.
> :) The literature calles it "mainline"; CVS calles it "1" which is extra
> confusing; ClearCase calls it "main"; git calls it "master".
> Frankly I don't care about the name that much as about the location.
I've heard it called all those things. It's been a long time since I
heard anyone _fail_ to understand what is meant by "trunk", though, and
I often hear it used in phrases like "Oh, that patch is in trunk now",
even for non-SVN-hosted projects. (Granted, I also sometimes hear "that
patch is in mainline now"; I almost never hear "that patch is in dev".)
How's that for a highly rigorous survey?
I think what bothers me about this proposal is not its merits, but the
hastiness of the process. Subversion has done well by thinking hard
about standards and then making a concerted effort to propagate good
ones consistently . If we're thinking of moving trunk into branches,
that's fine, but it's independent of going to the ASF repository.
I'm not convinced the change is a good idea, but I can easily see how I
might be persuaded, and it sounds like others are in the same position.
That discussion shouldn't be tied to the upcoming repository move. We
should bring it up not just here but on the users@ list too, so people
can point out all the things we haven't thought of. Then we can make
the right change (in our repository, in the book, in any tools we can
think of), confident that we've taken the time to get it right.
 http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2366 notwithstanding
Received on 2009-11-13 01:06:00 CET