Re: subversion repository structure

[Bean]

On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 6:23 AM, Pavel Roskin <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-07-15 at 23:02 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote:
>
>> I don't agree on this. GRUB Legacy and GRUB 2 are developed fully
>> independently (if any). If we follow your way, the repository would look like
>> this:
>>
>> branches/
>>   grub-legacy/
>>   prepare_0_97/
>>   prepare_0_98/
>>   prepare_1_98/
>>   prepare_1_99/
>>   ...
>>
>> I feel that this has no logical structure. When we make a branch for GRUB 2,
>> we put it under branches, when we modify the "trunk" of GRUB Legacy, we do
>> under branches, when we make a branch for GRUB Legacy, we use branches...
>
> 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.

Hi,

If we're using branches, I suggest the following layout:

branches
   grub-legacy
trunk
tags
  grub-0.97
  grub-1.96
  ...

trunk is grub2, the current develop branch, and grub-legacy is under branches.

-- 
Bean