[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration

From: Markus Hitter
Subject: Re: Proposal: Subversion Migration
Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 13:25:20 +0200

Am 23.10.2005 um 05:20 schrieb Adam Fedor:


and so on.

We could then have something like:


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,

[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

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]