[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Subversion repository layout

Sorry for adding my two cents late.

First, I'm distinctively indifferent about the "<package>/{trunk,tags, 
branches} vs {trunk,tags, branches}/<package>" issue.  (FWIW, I think it 
is a design deficiency in Subversion that it even forces us to _choose_ 
between the two.)

Joey Hess wrote:
> This is my proposal for the layout:
> [...]
> tools/

tools/ contains only the dh-make-perl package.  Why is this even in tools/ 
rather than packages/ (resp. {trunk,tags,branches}/)?  Is its status 
really special enough to warrant this?

> [...]
> branches/
> 	upstream/
> 		libalias-perl/
> 			2.32/
> 			current/
> 		...
> 		soap-lite/
> 			0.68/
> 			current/

Why branches/upstream/<package> instead of branches/<package>/upstream?  
Not that I care a lot, but I'm interested.

> FWIW, this avoids most of svn-buildpackage's bugs with this style of
> repo layout. (Except for the svn-inject -l 2 bug.)

I'd really like by far most of the toolchain issues (that occur with the 
new layout but not with the old=current one) ironed out before doing the 
switch.  Even after having read through this thread I'm not completely 
certain whether there remain any significant issues.  I trust the many 
eyes of the DPG, though, so I assume we're good to go.

Gunnar Wolf wrote:
> Now that reorganizing our repo comes to the table again, I was
> thinking (based on a bit of experience with the pkg-ruby-extras team)
> that, given renames are cheap in SVN, we could also use the repo
> itself to signal when rebuilds/uploads are pending - i.e.,
> pkg-ruby-extras have two main trees, packages and packages-wip (Work
> In Progress). As you should expect, the packages in WIP are not yet
> ready to upload.
> I was thinking we could use packages-pending so that non-DDs would
> just copy the trunks they worked with over there. When a DD notices
> there is a package in -pending, he just assumes it is ready to be
> uploaded.
> Of course, we could also split packages-needhelp or something like
> that, where we can put our advances while working towards a bugfix or
> something like that.
> Does it sound usable, or just overengineering (we already have the
> list)?

Seems like overengineering to me.  If we want to track status within the 
repo, why not simply maintain a TODO (or similar) file in the repo's root 
dir?  `svn lock` may also be worth a look.

Besides, continuous `svn cp`ing and `svn rm`ing dirs is prone to causing 
confusion when stuff has been checked out by people and then suddenly 
disappears (via `svn rm`) from under their noses.

Finally, as a matter of principle, Subversion is not an issue tracker.

Joey Hess wrote:
> I will probably convert the repo this weekend, if that's still ok.

Can you tell about when, or will you send another notice to the list before 
making the switch?


Attachment: pgpu2OUNng9y8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: