> "So don't do that." :-)
>
> Seriously. This is one of the big reasons we recommend a specific
> layout in the book, what we call the 'project root':
>
> project/
> trunk/
> branches/
> tags/
Urgh. I am not communicating well.
My group/project has followed your recommendations almost exactly.
I merged "http://our-server/svn-repo-path/project" into
the abbreviated svnrepo.
So let me try again:
* http://our-server/svn-repo-path
* project1
* trunk
* module1
* module2 (which depends on module1
* branches
* module1-branchA
* module2-branchB
* users
* joe
* module2
* branched-module1
* tags
* project2
* trunk
* module3
* module4 (which depends on project1/module2)
* branches
* module4-branchD
* branched-module1
* branched-module2
* tags
I.e. projects that are sharing each others modules
(and sub-modules, and sub-sub-modules, and...)
And, potentially, branching them.
Now, it is totally fair to say that if a lot of such sharing
has gone on, the modules shared should be promoted to the
status of a separate project/library.
But while it is just starting up...
(I reject arguments that say "you should not share".
Sharing is good.)
In general, there is no place to start the search
except from the root of the repository;
or, the common ancestor of all possible share points.
And if youy seek to maximize sharing, that common
ancestor is the root.
Yes, yes: good conventions allow you to look at less.
But even following good conventions, as sharing
increases the common ancestor keeps moving up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 2 22:45:13 2004