Upayavira wrote:
> Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
>
>> Rethinking our version structure and moving to subversion seems to
>> indicate that we should rethink our repository usage.
>>
>> I think we should use one repository per major version, so one
>> repository for all 2.x versions (except 2.0.x versions that we
>> leave the way it is).
>>
> I really think we should get away from this idea of multiple
> repositories. Subversion should, I believe, fix the problems that led us
> to our multiple repository situation, and therefore we should have just
> two repositories: code and site. (Of course we leave 2.0 where it is).
>
> If we don't do this, we loose all sorts of benefits, e.g. merging
> branches, lazy branching, etc, etc. And if there's no 'cost' in
> Subversion for branching (like there is in CVS), then why not do it?
The fact is that in subversion, a branch is just a dir! So this whole
discussion about how many "repositories" to have is moot, as we can copy
and move things round as many times as we want, all retaining history
and with *cheap* copies (IOW the same file that is not modified is
stored only once inside the repo and referenced in two places).
So we now have
cocoon-2.1 (repo)
cocoon-2.2 (repo)
with SVN we will have this dir structure:
/cocoon
/trunk
/site
/src
...
/branches
/cocoon2.1
/site
/src
...
Please read play with SVN a bit, as it has a different and better way to
handle these things.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|