forrest-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ross Gardler <rgard...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r367799 - /forrest/branches/dispatcher/
Date Wed, 11 Jan 2006 08:36:38 GMT
Thorsten Scherler wrote:
> El mar, 10-01-2006 a las 22:18 +0000, Ross Gardler escribió:
> 
>>thorsten@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>>Author: thorsten
>>>Date: Tue Jan 10 13:36:57 2006
>>>New Revision: 367799
>>>
>>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=367799&view=rev
>>>Log:
>>>Creation of the dispatcher refactoring branch
>>>
>>>Added:
>>>    forrest/branches/dispatcher/
>>
>>I'm a little confused here. This is not a branch, it is a new directory 
>>within the branches repository.
>>
>>What are you intending on doing in here and why is it not a true branch?
>>
>>Ross
> 
> 
> It is not a true branch because I will change 5% of the trunk. 
> 
> I have copied the related resources into the branch and renamed them.
> 
> Now I can
> ln -s 
> them with the trunk again. It is like I am working with the trunk but
> doing the editing in the dispatcher branch. This way we do not have to
> merge the branch, because the resulting work will replace all
> view/dispatcher related work of the trunk.
> 
> I thought I should use a branch for it. That is what you suggested the
> other time (or better said I understood). 
> 
> Is there a problem with the chosen method?

I did suggest a *branch*, but this is not a branch.

I foresee a few problems:

1) Non standard use of SVN therefore difficult to trace what is actually 
done (especially historically)

2) "ln -s" does not work on windows platforms, therefore a number of 
devs are prevented from participating (even as testers)

3) The "branch" already has a directory structure that is different from 
trunk (samples)

How much of a problem these will become I am not sure, but at the very 
least (2) is working against the community.

Ross


Mime
View raw message