On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:31:33AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > I'm not saying that we don't need tags/ and brunches/. I'm only saying > > that two nested "trunk" path components are overkilling and useless, as > > in: > > /trunk/packages/ledit/trunk/debian/... > > ^^^^^ ^^^^^ <snip> > > /tags/packages/ledit/6.6.6/debian/... > This, one, yes. Well, my commit did not change anything about that, it only moved from /trunk/packages/ledit/trunk/debian/... to /trunk/packages/ledit/debian/... > > /branches/packages/ledit/6.6.6/debian/... > > This one i believe (and from experience dealing with branches) is overkill, > and it is best suited to have it in the same dir as trunk. Doing so will turn once more in a lot of disk usage, but see below. > /trunk/packages/ledit/sid/debian > /trunk/packages/ledit/sarge/debian > /trunk/packages/ledit/3.08/debian > > And so on. but we can keep the trunk dir, or call it head, or even make head a > symlink to the currently developing stuff (don't know how subversion deals > with symlinks though). subversion handle symlinks correctly so I think this is the best solution. Having tags and branches in some "random place" with symlink for tags and/or branches frequently used. In this way we get the two: less disk usage for people who wants trunk/ only and quick access to tags and branches for people developing on them. > But again, i did in other projects, both the two above organizations, and i > believe that having the branches in the main dir is the better one. > > Also, you would do : > > svn co ..../trunk OCAML-SVN I believe you could do the same if they are symlinks, but I did not tried. Cheers. -- Stefano Zacchiroli -*- Computer Science PhD student @ Uny Bologna, Italy zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/ If there's any real truth it's that the entire multidimensional infinity of the Universe is almost certainly being run by a bunch of maniacs. -!-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature