Re: SVN layout

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

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.

> 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. 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.

So, :

  main
  main/sid
  main/sid/linux-2.6
  main/experimental/linux-2.6
  main/sarge
  tags
  people
  historical

Would be a possible layout.

> Another, different, idea that has been floating around is to
> have separeate branches - directories somewhere at the same level,
> not neccessarily under somthing called trunk/ or branches/  for
> each release. This is more or less what branches/dists/ is begining
> to look like. Perhaps we should put that kind of structure under
> trunk. And rename trunk to something less contentious.

Yep.

> Sorry for the long mail. I'm writing this because discussion on
> IRC is going no where. Please lets discuss and come to conesensus.
> Please, lets not randomly copy, delete and move linux-2.6, which
> many of us are working on, without getting some consenus.
> 
> Lastly, there are currently two copies of linux-2.6, its a by product
> of the mashed discusion on IRC. Lets put changes into the one in 
> trunk/linux-2.6 and leave the one in trunk/kernel/linux-2.6 alone
> until we decide what to do.

Ok.

Friendly,

Sven Luther