I was encouraged to post this question to the SVN mailing list. If
anyone on this list has suggestions for me I'd be very happy to hear
I'm using SVN for a website I'm in charge of developing. I have 4
developers who are working on the project. I want them to be able to
test their code before releasing it live (obviously), so I created a
test server. My idea was that I would create a branch of the code off
the main trunk and this is where the developers would make their
edits, then they would push to the dev server where I could have
someone do some QA on it, and then if it looks good I could merge it
up to the main trunk and push it to the live server.
The problem I'm running into, though, is that I don't think SVN is
really meant to keep two side-by-side branches going. I have been
doing this on my own (making changes to the dev branch before pushing
it to the dev server, and then merging those changes to the live
server if they work), and I have already had a lot of duplication of
effort just by myself.
The problem I run into is that the dev branch tends to be pretty
unstable because I have done a little work on a couple different ends,
and then I can't remember which files are actually ready for
production and which ones I am trying out to see if my edits work.
And I know if I have four developers banging away at the dev branch no
one will ever know when it is ready to be pushed to the live server
and which files aren't ready because they are still being tested.
Does anyone have any suggestions? Does it make sense to have a separate
branch for every developer (I doubt it)? I want to be able to allow
the developers to make changes on the dev site very often, but then I
want the control and confidence pushing changes to the live server
that the files that are going live are the right ones that have been
QA-tested on the dev server.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu Jan 18 16:55:00 2007