You just called a "kettle' a "pot."
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Irvine, Chuck R [EQ] [mailto:Chuck.R.Irvine@Embarq.com]
>Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:31 PM
>To: users@subversion.tigris.org
>Cc: Hartleroad, James M [EQ]; Smythe, Susan M [EQ]
>Subject: Why have a trunk dir, anyway?!
>
>A very intuitive branching structure, often the first one that
>people think of in my experience, is:
>
>R1
>---------------------------
> \
> \ R2
> \-------------------------
> \
> \ R3
> \-------------------------
> \
> \ R4
> \-------------------------
> .
> .
> .
>
>Now, with CVS you couldn't do this because you would become
>further and further diverged from the trunk. And, with CVS,
>deleting branches wasn't really an option.
>
>However, with Subversion, the branching scheme above seems
>perfectly do-able, at least as far as I can see. Especially,
>if you do away with the concept of the trunk. Instead of having:
>
>
>Proj/
> trunk/
> branches/
> tags/
>
>You might have something like:
>
>Proj/
> releases/
> R1/
> main/
> branches/
> tags/
> R2/
> main/
> branches/
> tags/
>
>When a new release RN needs to start, just branch off of RN-1.
>As new release goes into production, old releases can be
>retired (deleted).
>
>So, my question is, why do we need the trunk concept anyway?
>Is it just because we've been conditioned by CVS that you have
>to have a trunk. Or, are there valid reasons? Also, can anyone
>see a problem with the second of the two branching structures
>described above?
>
>All comments appreciated. Thanks.
>
>Chuck
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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
Received on Thu Apr 26 20:50:31 2007