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

Re: Sparse Directories vs Externals

From: void pointer <rcdailey_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:08:44 -0600

I have just thought of an unanswered concern that conflicts with David's
philosophy on feature branches:

Not all features can be implemented in a "continuous" way. I'm a big
advocate of continuous integration, but some features are hard to modularize
into finer tasks. Sometimes the granularity of task is just too large and
can result in a couple of days of work before any commits are made.
Prematurely checking in changes for the sake of being "continuous" would
break things.

I have two options I can take:

   1. I can keep the local changes on my hard drive and wait the 3 or 4 days
   it takes to implement the feature and then check it in that way. Of course,
   I would do updates along the way to make sure resolving conflicts does not
   overwhelm me all at once.
   2. I can create a branch, implement the feature, and then merge it back
   over. I'd also ensure that I merge changes from trunk to my branch every day
   to keep conflicts at a minimum.

Immediately number 1 and 2 seem just as functional but 2 has more "steps" to
take. However, #2 has the added benefit of acting as a backup. What if my
hard drive crashes when I'm using method #1? I will lose all of my work!
However, if I am using #2 at least I have *something* saved.

How does everyone feel about this point?


To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-25 16:09:42 CET

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.