Re: Repository change to SVN, Jan 28th

[Helge Hess]

On Jan 22, 2006, at 16:42, Sheldon Gill wrote:
> Actually, I think Fred has raised a good point here. We do, I think, 
> need some clarification about branches and merging back to trunk.

While I agree that the point is good in general and some rules need to 
be set up, its not the most important point _right now_.

For now, why not just apply the same conventions used as in CVS?

>  A few additional rules and guidelines may be useful. I've some 
> questions:
>   - are we going to stick with the SVN recommended 'trunk', 'branch' 
> and 'tag'

This seems like a rather obvious yes?

>   - how are branches to be named? What about sub-branches?

Same like CVS?

>   - how are developers going to communicate about branches and what's 
> going on in them?

Same like CVS?

>   - what goes into tag? When?

Same like CVS?

>   - Are we going to import more vendor trees? (like ffcall, portaudio 
> etc)

What would be the rational and why would that be different to CVS?

> Things to think about.

Yes, but not relevant to the migration itself?

Greets,
  Helge
--
http://docs.opengroupware.org/Members/helge/
OpenGroupware.org