RE: Branch/switch/merge question

> From: Bob Archer [mailto:Bob.Archer_at_amsi.com]
>
> Are you using svn 1.8?

Oh - uhm... I'm using TortoiseSVN, 1.8.2, which is built against Subversion 1.8.3.

> If not, are you doing reintegration merge when merging your branch back in
> to the trunk?

I'm not familiar with those words. Maybe next time I merge, I'll look for a checkbox or something that says "reintegration." ? If I see it, I don't know what it means... I guess I'll google for svn reintegration merge.

> Generally, there isn't a reason to branch as a matter of course. It's not wrong
> per say... but I'd rather see all the work just done in trunk. Branches would
> be used for larger features that multiple people might collaborate on, or take
> longer than a day or so.

The reason we decided to start branching was... As long as we were all (all 3 of us) working on trunk, none of us would commit anything that still caused a compile error, or hadn't been at least tested to be launchable. Nobody wanted to be responsible for blocking the others from actually developing. So we decided to all start branching and doing more frequent commits. The other 2 guys are git fanatics, but I'm the IT person, and I don't want to deal with git for now. Effort into migrating toward git would be effort mal-spent in a tiny startup. If all we want to do is branch & merge, I know svn can handle that. I just want to be sure we're not being idiots in some way cuz none of us has ever done it before (with svn).

> Also, I suggest people avoid using switch. It is too easy to forget which svn
> path you are currently pointing to and commit something to the wrong path.
> Also, svn switch doesn't handle non-versioned stuff as well as say GIT does.
> I'd much rather see our devs check out trunk and branch to separate local
> working copies.

I think you're talking about git stash. Right?

And I think you're saying...

At first, I was doing a sparse checkout. I non-recursively checked out /, and then I made /trunk fully recursive, and then I went one level deeper into /branches, and then I made /branches/eharvey fully recursive... And then I discovered how natural it was to switch & merge, so I got rid of my whole working copy, and re-checked out recursively (non-sparse) /trunk. But it sounds like you suggest going back to the non-recursive checkout of /, with recursive /trunk, and recursive /branches/eharvey. Just to keep the branch & trunk logically separate from each other and eliminate any user error regarding "Which what, oh, where am I? I forget..." You might be right... and if I say so to the other guys, they might use this to bludgeon me into git. ;-)
Received on 2013-11-27 03:03:52 CET