RE: trunk naming best practice question
From: Bob Archer <Bob.Archer_at_amsi.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 14:20:38 +0000
> For the trunk, what's the common practice to name a version of the trunk?
Really, it's about whatever works best for you. We no longer use the name "trunk" on our projects. I guess it works ok if you branch for release... but that wasn't working for us. So, instead of using "trunk" we use the version number... so in our project you would see...
Our procedure is to only merge up versions. We build and release from out version path [branch]. Feature branches are created for items that will take more than a day or more than one person is working on it. We fix bugs in the lowest version number that we are still supporting and merge that fix up all the way through our non-released dev version.
This also helps us a lot with our build server, because we had to constantly redefine what was in the "trunk" working copy. This way creating a build project for a new release is much easier... we svn copy the version to the new release version, update the cruise control.net config file that is in the project folder with the new version number, checkout the new version path to the build server, update the ccnet.config root config to point to the new version.
We also generally don't build from feature branches, but we could if we wanted to. However, the build scripts would have to be changed a bit since artifacts are copied to a folder based on version number atm.
Once again, whatever works best for you. Using a trunk that was never the same version from week to week didn't work for us. We also were doing a lot of cyclic merges and needed a better way.
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.