Re: Our SVN layout is not that smart OR should we change the SVN layout? (take 2)
On 6/25/06, Sam Hocevar <email@example.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> Since there was nobody speaking against this, I will make the necessary
Asking on a Saturday and acting on Sunday morning? ITYM "nobody had
time to speak against it."
I am sorry, I have had examples in the past when this kind of
announcemnt just went without answer, probably this is a reason behind
my hastly actions.
I do not like the idea of branches/tags and trunk at all, it
does not have any meaning. What we have in Debian is unstable and
sarge/etch/etc., and the other projects I know (SDL packagking, Allegro
packaging) use unstable/ as the trunk repository, too, and branch when
OTOH, D-I, base-config, dpkg use the classical SVN layout, so there
are example both ways; I don't have any strong feelings about it, but,
IMHO, think it makes sense.
If you want we can discuss the change to that (I have learned my
lesson and will not haste it now :-) )
It's not that it can't be reverted, or that it really matters, but
well, leaving some time for discussion and planning would have been
wiser and more respectful. For instance, you broke svn-buildpackage for
all my packages.
I am sorry, really, and promise to have learned my lesson.
What is needed to have the svn-buildpackage fixed. AFAIUI, a
debian/svn-deblayout file can be placed in SVN and it can be made to
work properly, no matter who will checkout.
For now, the tarballs directory is still in its original place.
Although I suspect your svn-buildpackage settings will assume the
tarballs dir to be at the same level as the packages, I feel the
duplication is unnecessary.
I intended to make that the next step, converting evrything from
prapre scripts to only svn-buildpackage scripts.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein