[Rt-devel] Relabeling subversion branches

Matt Disney disney at ece.utk.edu
Thu Jul 1 11:36:21 EDT 2004

Jesse Vincent wrote:
> Should the various stable/testing/experimental branches have their major
> version numbers as part of their pathnames?  Is this new plan actually
> better than what we do now? Is there a better model we should be
> following that will be more useful to the general public?

Ok, so I'm kind of an svn newbie, not a large project maintainer, and I 
apologize if what I'm about to say doesn't make sense.

It seems to me that it might be best for each release to have the 
following copies (that is, an svn copy, not a literal file copy) 
associated with it:

rt/trunk (if applicable)
rt/tags/rt-3.2.0 (minor release number)

Another example:

Also, as I indicate above, I would tend to believe that:
1. "trunk"=="stable" instead of "trunk"=="maint",
2. "stable," "maint," "testing", etc... should be tags not branches,
3. in general, the public should be steered toward tags and away from
    branches, while branches would be more useful for developers.

Of course, the whole tag-branch dispute could really be a non-issue 
since svn handles them the same way. It's just a matter of what you want 
to call them or where you want to put the copies.

One downside of my suggestion is that you would have to create at least 
3 or 4 copies everytime you roll a release.

That's just my two cents. :-) Regardless of my comments, I do think 
you're on the right track with your original suggestion to change the 
repository layout and labeling.


More information about the Rt-devel mailing list