Re: Our SVN layout is not that smart OR should we change the SVN layout? (take 2)
On 6/25/06, Sam Hocevar <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 25, 2006, Eddy Petrişor wrote:
> 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.
It's all right. I'm seldom pissed for more than 2 hours anyway :)
Glad to hear that, again, I am sorry for acting hastly...
> OTOH, D-I, base-config, dpkg use the classical SVN layout, so there
> are example both ways;
But they're fully hosted projects, aren't they?
Hmm, that is a point, but still they tag their releases anyway in tags
and things like that.
> If you want we can discuss the change to that (I have learned my
> lesson and will not haste it now :-) )
I can give other reasons why I like the unstable/etch naming scheme:
when you start packaging something, you obviously put it in trunk/, even
if it only goes to experimental. Then when it enters unstable, you need
Well, my understanding is that experimental is a thing which is a real
branch since most of the things should happen in trunk which is
From time to time one actually does something dedicated for
experimental, starting from the trunk = unstable code in branches.
to choose between copying trunk/ into branches/experimental, which may
be nonsensical if the main development still happens in the experimetal
branch, which will be forked from time to time to unstable, or into
branches/unstable, which is inconsistent with all other packages.
I personally don't find it that inconsistent, and probably most
packages will not have that much branching anyway. Moreover, do we
want that much consistency in the SVN repo ? ;-)
However, though I imported many packages in the repository, I haven't
been here for a long time and I don't want to change other people's
habits. I believe it's possible to have both schemes in parallel if
people feel too strongly about one or the other.
As I said, I don't feel that stong in any way, but I think the flow
which was followed until now is something along the lines of:
- make changes in trunk, keep suite to UNRELEASED until the release
and in between
- tag at each release, upload the tagged version
- branch things like backported packages or experimental things
- generally development happens in trunk which is unstable or unstable
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein