I should've said, the "trunk" is just "copied"
to a different name, then the old name deleted;
hence, it is just essentially renamed (moved).
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Fouts Christopher (QNA RTP PT PREV)
>Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:44 PM
>To: users@subversion.tigris.org
>Subject: RE: Re: Why have a trunk dir, anyway?!
>
>Hmm, in this approach, the trunk is just renamed.
>In R1, it was called R1. In R2, it was called R2, etc.
>
>Also, with this approach, what happens if a problem is found
>in RN-1, after RN already branched, with RN's respective branches?
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Irvine, Chuck R [EQ] [mailto:Chuck.R.Irvine@Embarq.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 3:38 PM
>>To: Josh Gilkerson; Fouts Christopher (QNA RTP PT PREV)
>>Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
>>Subject: RE: Re: Why have a trunk dir, anyway?!
>>
>>To me it seems that there are a couple of differences.
>>
>>First, with the "proposed" structure, there is no "trunk"
>>directory that is continually maintained. Instead, every development
>>stream , i.e.
>>branch, is dedicated to a particular release. When that release is
>>obsolete, the branch can be retired (deleted).
>>With the proposed structure, all branches are treated uniformly.
>>
>>The standard svn "trunk" directory isn't like that. Over time, it is
>>where all releases start. Later, those releases move to a "release"
>>branch. And the trunk can never be retired. With the "standard"
>>braching structure, all branches are not treated uniformly.
>>
>>Secondly, and I'm not sure that it matters, but with the proposed
>>structure, release branch R is always branched off of release branch
>>R-1. With the "standard" approach, at least as I understand it, all
>>release branches are branched from the trunk.
>>
>>I guess the thing I like most about the "proposed" structure
>is that it
>>is simpler. There doesn't seem to be any need for a subversion "trunk"
>>directory that is handled differently than "release" branches.
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Josh Gilkerson [mailto:jwg@google.com]
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:05 PM
>>> To: Chris.Fouts@qimonda.com
>>> Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
>>> Subject: Re: Why have a trunk dir, anyway?!
>>>
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>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 21:47:22 2007