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