Re: SVN layout
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 09:56:55AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 04:49:59PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > Personally, in the context of the two questions above, I advocate
> > trunk/linux-2.6
> > trunk/linux-2.6-experimental
> I vote for this also, and would probably vote for moving the sarge and co
> branches here too.
I am fine with moving sarge and sarge-security.
> > However I am happy with pretty much anything - i symlink into
> > the hierachy anyway.
> > Also, please keep in mind that svn does not attach any special
> > meaning to trunk/, branch/, tags/, or anything else. Its just
> > a common convention. To reiterate - there is notihing in svn
> > that dictages trunk can't contain branches, or even that
> > a directory trunk must exist. svk may be different, if so,
> > this is a excellent time to discuss that.
> One interesting thing is for people to be able to easily checkout a part of
> the tree that is actually usefull (well, trunk right now), and not checkout a
> bunch of stuff which is managed smartly on the svn server side, but spills out
> to multiple copies on the client side (tags come to mind).
> So, the proposal to have : trunk, tags and people on the toplevel, and then
> everything that is actually used goes into trunk. We can rename trunk to main
> or whatever if it makes people more confortable.
I think a good portion of this argument centres around trunk being
trunk, so renaming would probably remove any connotations that
the name trunk carries.
> Maybe we could revive the
> historical or obsolet toplevel for stuff which are going away, like the
> kernel-soruce-2.6.11 stuff for example, for easier access than going fishing
> for them in older revisions of the repo.
I think there is some value in having histroical/obsolete.
I'd welcome its return.
> So, :
> Would be a possible layout.
Thats fine by me too.