|
From: | Markus Hitter |
Subject: | Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration |
Date: | Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:25:20 +0200 |
Am 23.10.2005 um 05:20 schrieb Adam Fedor:
/libs/base/{trunk,tags,branches} /libs/gui/{trunk,tags,branches} /libs/Renaissance/{trunk,tags,branches} /apps/Gorm/{trunk,tags,branches} /apps/gworkspace/{trunk,tags,branches} and so on. We could then have something like: /modules/dev-apps /modules/core /modules/dev-libsSure. but I am not very familiar with svn.
Subversion doesn't enforce any directory layout at all. Tags, branches and copies are all "cheap" and are all the same: a bunch of references in a new directory to what you have copied/tagged/ branched. To me, it's unclear why there's still made a difference between tags and branches[1], but that's how the Subversion book recommends it and it seems to be widely accepted.
Unlike CVS, Subversion numbers versions throughout the whole repository. A bunch of files checked out have always the same version; files get higher version numbers even without being changed. As a result, one should tend to make small repositories, i.e. one for each app, one for each tool, one for each lib.
That's how I understand it, Markus[1] IMHO, a layout like /path/to/part/{trunk,releases,branches} might throw away some CVS relicts but fit better into reality.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter http://www.jump-ing.de/
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |