RE: parellel development

Hi Anthony,

My process is as follows.

trunk ==> mirrors production.

branch/Project A ==> is development.

          /Project B

Branch/Support ==> used for bug fixes into production.

It is the responsibility of the development lead to merge from the trunk
into the branch on a regular basis. This ensures that you are developing
on the same code base as in production, except the support branch. The
support branch is used to fix production issue before merging into the
trunk for release into testing/production.

Before a Dev branch is released for the final iteration of testing and
into production, one final merge is done from trunk into branch and
followed by branch into trunk.

The only caveat is, after the dev branch is merged into the trunk, we
get an urgent production fix. This condition has to be managed
carefully. We fix the problem in the support branch and release it into
testing/production from the release branch and then merge it into the
trunk.

One of the draw back I find in Subversion is that, ClearCase maintains
merge tracking. You could use tools suggested in this user group to
maintain merge tracking in Subversion. I did not use it because it is
not part of Subversion core yet. I ensure my log comments have From
Branch and Revision from::to .

Hope this helps.

Thanks

Lakshman

  _____

From: ettinger@gmail.com [mailto:ettinger@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
Anthony Ettinger
Sent: Friday, 31 March 2006 3:43 PM
To: Lakshman Srilakshmanan
Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: parellel development

I want to setup a test-bed, but eventually, parellel development would
be 30+ simultaneous streams needing to be merged back into the next
release <version-xx.x> branch.

parellel branches would need to be "rebased" (to borrow from clearcase
terminology) regulary from current release branch , as the <
version-xx.x+1> increments until <feature-y> branch goes out in
<version-xx.x+N>

I haven't seen too much documentation on managing this yet for
subversion. Got any suggestions?

On 3/30/06, Lakshman Srilakshmanan
<lakshman.srilakshmanan@tradingpost.com.au> wrote:

Hi Anthony,

Our one and only reason to migrate from cvs/sourceSafe was to enable
parallel development

We have about 90 projects and 28 developers. 3 of the projects have
between 3 and 5 streams of development. Others have generally 2. One for

Support and one for Development.
Our trunk mirrors production at all time.

Thanks
Lakshman

-----Original Message-----
From: ettinger@gmail.com [mailto: ettinger@gmail.com
<mailto:ettinger@gmail.com> ] On Behalf Of
Anthony Ettinger
Sent: Friday, 31 March 2006 3:10 PM
To: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: parellel development

how well does svn support parellel development? it's been said that
cvs isn't very good at it with respect to say clearcase.

--
Anthony Ettinger
Signature: http://chovy.dyndns.org/hcard.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
-- 
Anthony Ettinger
Signature: http://chovy.dyndns.org/hcard.html