Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

[Markus Hitter]

Am 23.10.2005 um 05:20 schrieb Adam Fedor:

> > /libs/base/{trunk,tags,branches}
> > /libs/gui/{trunk,tags,branches}
> > /libs/Renaissance/{trunk,tags,branches}
> > /apps/Gorm/{trunk,tags,branches}
> > /apps/gworkspace/{trunk,tags,branches}
> >
> > and so on.
> >
> > We could then have something like:
> >
> > /modules/dev-apps
> > /modules/core
> > /modules/dev-libs
>
> Sure. but I am not very familiar with svn.

Subversion doesn't enforce any directory layout at all. Tags,  
branches and copies are all "cheap" and are all the same: a bunch of  
references in a new directory to what you have copied/tagged/ 
branched. To me, it's unclear why there's still made a difference  
between tags and branches[1], but that's how the Subversion book  
recommends it and it seems to be widely accepted.

Unlike CVS, Subversion numbers versions throughout the whole  
repository. A bunch of files checked out have always the same  
version; files get higher version numbers even without being changed.  
As a result, one should tend to make small repositories, i.e. one for  
each app, one for each tool, one for each lib.


That's how I understand it,
Markus



[1] IMHO, a layout like /path/to/part/{trunk,releases,branches} might  
throw away some CVS relicts but fit better into reality.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dipl. Ing. Markus Hitter
http://www.jump-ing.de/