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

RE: RE: RE: Re: Why have a trunk dir, anyway?!

From: <Chris.Fouts_at_qimonda.com>
Date: 2007-04-27 17:59:45 CEST

Sorry, I mixed this with another thread; please ignore
what I said...

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Irvine, Chuck R [EQ] [mailto:Chuck.R.Irvine@Embarq.com]
>Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 11:36 AM
>To: Fouts Christopher (QNA RTP PT PREV); users@subversion.tigris.org
>Subject: RE: RE: RE: Re: Why have a trunk dir, anyway?!
>
>
>> I see no less work when merging changes between RN and RN-1;
>hence to
>> me it's at least no better, it may even be worse since I'd have to
>> - Merge RN-1 branch(es) to RN-1 main
>> - Merge RN-1 main to RN main
>> - Merge RN main to RN branch(es)
>
>Don't understand. There isn't an RN-main and a RN-branch.
>There is only one branch for each of R1, R2, R3, etc.
>
>>
>> Like I said it does NOT matter what you call it, you still have a
>> trunk.
>
>There is nothing in the second scheme like trunk in the first scheme.
>Say, for illustration purposes, you always have three releases
>going concurrently. When the the oldest release is retired, a
>new one starts.
>So, the first three-release situation is as shown below.
>
>
>Scheme 1 (SVN Standard):
>
>Each release starts on the trunk and *moves* to a release
>branch when the next release started.
>
>
>
> R1
> /-----------------------
> /
> /
> / R2
> / /----------------
> / /
> / /
> / /
> R1 / R2 / R3
>Trunk--------/--------------------------------------------
>
>
>Scheme 2 (Homogenous Release Branches)
>
>Each release starts on a branch and *stays* on the branch
>until it is retired. Each new release RN branches off of RN-1
>(not the trunk).
>
>
>
> R3 /----------------------
> /
> /
> /
> R2 /---------------------
> /
> /
> /
>R1-----------------------
>
>
>
>Now say that you retire R1 and start R4. The new situation looks like:
>
>
> R2
> /----------------
> /
> / R3
> / /------------------
> / /
> / /
> R2 / R3 / R4
>Trunk----------------------------------------------------
>
>The R1 release branch was retired (and deleted from the
>repository). R3 was moved to a release branch. R4 now lives on
>the trunk.
>
>
>Scheme 2 (Homogenous Release Branches)
>
>Each release starts on a branch and *stays* on the branch
>until it is retired. Each new release RN branches off of RN-1.
>
>
>
> R4 /----------------------
> /
> /
> /
> R3 /---------------------
> /
> /
> /
>R2-----------------------
>
>The original R1 branch was deleted from the repository. R3
>stays on its original branch. R4 starts (and will stay until
>retirement) on a branch taken from R3 (and not from the trunk).
>
>The point is, for the 1st scheme, all releases start the trunk and
>*move* to a release branch. The trunk exists for the life of
>the application. In the second scheme, each release stays on
>it's original branch until the release is retired. And, there
>is no *trunk* branch
>(dir) that lives for the life of the application.
>
>If anyone is still with me at this point, my purpose isn't
>really to say that the second scheme is *better*. I was just
>trying to see if anyone could see any problems with using it.
>So far, we've done quite a bit of experimentation and can see
>no problems. But... Being new to SVN, there are lots of folks
>that have more insight than us.
>
>Thanks!
>
>Chuck
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 27 18:00:31 2007

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