Re: on per-package trunk/ directory
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:40:40AM +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> 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/...
Yeah, i know.
> > > /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.
No, because the amount of branches is usually small, in the number of 2-3 at
most. you need to not forget to erase them when you are done with them though.
The tags, by nature, are numerous and will grow more as time passes. They have
no vocation to be modified also, but copied back in a branch if need be.
The tags are further kept in an efficient way on the server, but not on the
checkout machine, so it makes sense to move them out of the way.
> > /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.
I wonder how subversion handles symlinks to directories you svn cp or svn mv
though.
Like said, i doubt there are many branches, so i would keep them at toplevel
for now.
> > 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.
Not sure, would be worth investigating. but i think this is overkill for the
very small amount of branches we have had upto now. If in the future there are
a huge proliferation of branches, we may rethink this though.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: