On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 1:48 AM, Ryan
Schmidt<subversion-2009b_at_ryandesign.com> wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2009, at 18:48, Stanley Klemme wrote:
>
>> 2) Having 3rd party software in version control is indeed a terribile
>> idea. 3rd party should not be versioned at all, as you are not
>> doing any
>> development on it. You should be providing unversioned installers or
>> libraries instead.
Oh, my. This is simply untrue. If you're taking third-party software
and doing work on it in-house, it's often *vital* to have in-house
source control on your changes. I once got paid a very nice chunk of
consulting money for providing exactly this facility.
The key is to handle the third-party code as a clean, pristine tag or
branch that you do not edit in-house, and do your edits in a very
separate branch or trunk. This allows you to compare your code and do
cautious integration with vendor provided changes, and to track your
modifications relative to their last release so you can merge them to
new versions of the vendor software.
> Just to pick at this point, this isn't necessarily true in all cases.
> I mean, there's a whole chapter of the book ("Vendor Branches")
> explaining ways of managing third-party software in your repository.
>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.advanced.vendorbr.html
>
> It may not be the right solution for all cases, but there are times
> when it can be valid and helpful.
Indeed. For example, if you do Linux kernel modifications but use SVN
in-house, it's useful to keep a pristine SVN branch with the latest
Subversion code.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2372381
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-07-19 06:10:49 CEST