On 28.10.2011 18:21, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [Johan Corveleyn]
>> Thinking further about it, I think it makes some sense to establish a
>> link between the branch-context, and the place where the branches
>> live. For one thing, it helps to make sure that there are no name
>> collisions between branches within the same branch-context. And
>> people using SVN are quite used to the fact that branches/tags are
>> part of the directory structure.
> That said, is it finally time to stop recommending the (IMO)
> nonsensical layout in which 'trunk' lives away from all the other
> branches? Not being too fond of extra typing, I always just put my
> branches at the same level as trunk. (This means I can't name a branch
> 'tags'. Something I've never really wanted to do anyway.) Those who
> opt for better organization at the expense of extra typing sometimes do
> the opposite, putting trunk inside the branches dir. But either way
> makes more sense than pretending trunk is not a branch.
And making branches first-class citizens makes the most sense of all.
Then once you're only allowed to merge between actual branches, about
half of all the horrible edge cases just vanish away.
(Note that one could still get the merge-arbitrary-stuff behaviour by
piping "svn diff" output through "svn patch".)
Received on 2011-10-28 18:35:52 CEST