On Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 09:05:25PM +1000, Drew Parsons wrote:
> I am planning to bring some Xprint packages into the svn repository. Is
> there any documentation for the structure of the repository? For
> instance I notice there is the trunk directory
> (http://necrotic.deadbeast.net/svn/xorg-x11/trunk/), but it seems to be
> out of date relative to xorg-x11/branches/7.1. Should I be commiting my
> new packages to branches/7.1 or where?
After discussion on IRC, it appears branches/7.1 is the right place.
I'm not sure why; historically I used for managine different *Debian*
release suites, not different upstream ones.
If someone could shed some light on the reasons why branches/7.1 was
created, it might help us develop a strategy for managing the repo
structure going forward.
> Likewise from time to time we'll want to upload more recent versions of
> individual modules than the versions matching the latest X11R7
> amalgamated release. For instance at the moment we'll want to upload
> libxfont 1.2, even though v1.1 matches X11R7.1. Would libxfont 1.2 go
> into branches/7.1 regardless, or into trunk?
Again, I think a branch structure based on a Debian target might be
indicated:
branches/etch (for testing security, and RC issues close to release
when auto-propagation from sid is switched off)
branches/sarge (for stable security)
branches/experimental
Historically, the trunk would map to "branches/sid".
Also, I'm not sure we should branch the whole shebang, ever, now that
upstream has everything in neat modules. We should probably only branch
individual modules on an as-needed basis.
> I've used cvs routinely before but I'm new to svn, so I'm not certain
> yet if "branching" means the same in svn as in cvs.
Kind of. The main difference is that it's much cheaper to branch in SVN
than CVS. A branch, like a tag, is just a pointer until changes are made,
and those changes are represented as deltas.
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.branchmerge.html
The biggest hurdle I had to get over as a CVS refugee was that repository
layout is arbitrary. There's nothing special about "trunk", "branches", or
"tags". They're just names.
> p.s. just to throw a spanner in the works, is anyone agitating to move
> the repository to git to follow X.org upstream?
I've been having to learn a little bit of git thanks to my job, but I'm not
a frequent committer anymore, either. I'd say this decision should be
driven by consensus of those who do most of the committing.
I'm happy to host git on necrotic, and run gitweb there as well as any
other reasonable ancillary tools.
--
G. Branden Robinson | If God had intended for man to go
Debian GNU/Linux | about naked, we would have been
branden@debian.org | born that way.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature