On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 05:21:38PM +0100, Peter Valdemar M?rch wrote:
> When I used CVS we also used "moving tags" to indicate things like
> "Integration Tested", or "Current Daily Build" or things like that...
I've used this notion of a "rolling label/tag" in several
tools as well. Its really a dynamic marker/reference to
the "latest <status-level> version"
> Using branches and merging between them is kindof painful especially if
> it is to be done from a script. Especially because the script needs to
> keep track of merge history to avoid repeated merges.
Uggh! I forget that SVN doesn't do smart merging yet. That
would be another definite "downer" for using promotion branches
and point for using the property-based or rolling-tag approaches.
Another thing to consider ... The promotion-property mechanism and
the promotion-branch mechanism both allow all previous (no longer
latest) versions of a given promotion-status to remain on the
codeline and be easily queried if you ever need to answer the
question: what was the 'current TEST' version contents 3 months
and 3 days ago.
The rolling-tag ("current" configuration marker for a promotion-level)
may not necessarily preserve that information (or if it does, it may
be a lot more work to get at it -- which may not matter to you if
you don't think you need it all that often). I don't know enough about
the implementation details to know which is the case for SVN.
> I personally think that moving or "rolling" tags has merrit.
> Especially if the tags change often, and no work has to be
> done "inside" them.
>
> (I've just seen that Mr. Appleton has answered here too.
> Well, OK, differing opinions are fine, I guess... ;-D)
Most definitely!
FWIW - I wasn't trying to recommend one particular approach over
another so much as identify the different alternatives and the
tradeoffs involved. Since Steve was trying to 'rolling tag'
approach I wanted to bring up the other two (Ben had already
mentioned the promotion branch).
Another interesting question is, which of them seems like
a better "fit" with the difference between the SVN paradigm
and the CVS paradigm. I sort of like the fact that the property
approach doesn't have to create any copies (branches or tags),
just associate a status-attribute with an existing revno.
However, readily accessing it is somewhat less convenient
than via a "copy", plus its probably desirable to have a
copy anyway for the "latest" of each status-type.
--
Brad Appleton <brad@bradapp.net> www.bradapp.net
Software CM Patterns (www.scmpatterns.com)
Effective Teamwork, Practical Integration
"And miles to go before I sleep." -- Robert Frost
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 13 19:46:41 2005