Re: [Fwd: Re: Branches? How many?]
From: Talden <talden_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-05-11 13:29:35 CEST
I'm wary of any strategy that fails to encourage brevity in work tasks.
There are costs to using a task branch for each and every task (I
1. Features are delivered to the trunk later - less exposure to other
2. Features can be harder to review - the changes are larger and their
3. There is a higher likelihood of conflicts - the longer a developer
4. You end up with a more complex revision history - many more merge
There are arguments in favour of a branch for every task of course...
1. Task branches can be named by ticket number - easier to find than
2. Incomplete work can be checked in, and multiple developers working
In the end, as long as you've worked out the process and everyone
-- Talden On 5/11/07, Chris.Fouts@qimonda.com <Chris.Fouts@qimonda.com> wrote: > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Stefan Langer [mailto:mailtolanger@googlemail.com] > >Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 5:04 AM > >To: subversion > >Subject: [Fwd: Re: Branches? How many?] > > > >Forgot to include the list in the reply! > >Vandenbroucke Sander schrieb: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> We are working with SVN for a couple of months now but we're > >not quite > >> on top of it. > >> What we struggle with most is a good branch policy. Now we > >have each a > >> branch in which we do our daily development for new features as well > >> as for bug fixes. When things are tested they get merged into trunk. > >> This leads to many intermediate commits to our branches in > >order to be > >> able to merge a small bug fix to trunk without merging any ongoing > >> work on a new feature. > >> > >> Apart from bug fixes and new features we also have 'test software'. > >> This is highly experimental software mainly to be able to trace and > >> diagnose bugs. Most of these tests get obsolete once the bug > >is fixed. > >> Some stay alive. > >> > >> Any ideas on how to handle this situation? > >> > >> Sander. > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org > >> > >> > >> > >Why the need for every developer to have a separate branch? > >Let all work on the trunk and just use branch for releases and > >experimentell stuff. > >After all having more than one developer work on the same code > >base is what subversion is all about. If you need greater > >controll use a checkin checkout model. > > > >Regards > >Stefan > > > > > > > > I like the idea of developers having their own branches, so they > can commit their work without affecting others. > > A compromise to having private branches and developers committing to > trunk is to have an integration branch off the trunk, which developers > can do their work on. > > To the OP, I don't see an issue to how you're using SVN; that's exactly > how we're using it; of course we only have 4 developers in my group) so > we're able to manage it. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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.orgReceived on Fri May 11 13:29:57 2007 |
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.