[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Why have a trunk dir, anyway?!

From: Josh Gilkerson <jwg_at_google.com>
Date: 2007-04-26 21:04:56 CEST

It seems to me that your scheme is no different from the trunk
approach except for the way things are labeled (for subversion, that
is).

This tree is basically the same as yours, but the pipes are the trunk.
and the parts that are the same are branches.

             R1
|||||||||||----------------
           |
            | R2
             ||||||||||||--------------
                        |
                         | R3
                          ||||||||------------------
                                 |
                                  | R4
                                   |||||---------------------
                                       |

On 4/26/07, Chris.Fouts@qimonda.com <Chris.Fouts@qimonda.com> wrote:
> 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
>
>

-- 
Josh Gilkerson
Software Engineer
Google, Inc  MV-1600 Plymouth (HQ)
+1 (650) 253-1667 direct
+1 (859) 608-7827 cell
jwg@google.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 26 21:05:37 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.