Re: Re: Suspending commits

On 7/24/06, Michael Pickard <mpickard@visitlondon.com> wrote:
>
> Because there may be a need to rebuild if something fails UAT, hence
> 'without my prior authorisation'.
>
> If I needed to rebranch each time, I'd get at least one or two new branches
> a week *plus* any branches created by failed UAT – it would soon become
> unwieldy.

And your management is OK with development coming to a near-halt every
time UAT starts? Can't say I've worked in a place that would accept
that.

You really ought to create tags and build from those. You'll get the
"lockdown" you're after (only allow one person to create tags), get a
"snapshot" of the code at any time as a result for repeatable builds,
and you don't have to stop developers from committing at all.

If that still seems "unweildy", why not make note of what revision
your initial UAT build came from, and if you need to rebuild, just
check out that specific revision instead of HEAD?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 24 12:56:15 2006