On Wednesday 16 July 2008 00:23:53 Pavel Roskin wrote:
Yes, that's my suggestion. I understand that you may feel uneasy about
it, but I don't think we are going to do many releases from the legacy
branch, maybe one or none at all.
It's OK to have stable and development branches. grub-legacy is
essentially our stable branch, even though it didn't start as a branch.
CVS is inherently asymmetric. Certain things just don't work on
branches the way they work on trunk. That's why it was reasonable to
avoid branches with CVS for anything but release preparation.
Subversion is (more) symmetric. It's possible to develop on any branch,
check the entire history of files, merge changes from other branches.
Separating trunk from other branches in the standard Subversion
repository layout is primarily to give comfort to CVS users, who are
used to having one trunk with a special status.
We could have GRUB 2 under branches too and have no trunk. But having
GRUB 2 as the trunk gives us the standard layout, which is a good thing.
In any case, I think it's better than any of the "two-headed" solutions.
Hmm... I am very used to Subversion as well as CVS, but I myself always make a
separation when two branches have no logical relationship (yes, both are in
the same project, but have different code bases). Probably my way of thinking
is to view directories as categories, while yours is ... I don't know how to
call it.
Please let me know others' opinions. I have difficulty in making a decision.