[Rt-devel] Relabeling subversion branches

Blair Zajac blair at orcaware.com
Fri Jul 2 01:33:11 EDT 2004

Max Bowsher wrote:

> 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?

These are for developers, so I think sticking with a standard scheme would work 

> I favour identifying branches by version number, and putting the information about which version is which phase of development on a
> webpage.


> My reason for this is so that you can easily identify which branch is which version and vice versa.
> If you name the branches after phases of development, then the rt3.3/3.4 branch will be known as 'experimental', 'testing', and
> 'stable' at various points in it's lifecycle. Likewise, the 'stable'/'testing'/'whatever' branch doesn't tell you what version you
> are talking about, unless coupled with a point in time.

There's also the issues of changing the tree's when you move projects from 
testing to stable.  There's also the question of having multiple stable 
branches.  Say in a year, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 are all stable, then what?

> I believe that the occasional user of RT is more likely to go for a tarball than a checkout, and in any case, would be better served
> by a webpage, giving more detail about the status of various branches than is possible in a one-word description.
> Therefore, I suggest the following layout:
> rt/branches/rt-3.0
> rt/branches/rt-3.2
> rt/branches/rt-3.3



Since the rt is redundant.

> - and either:
> rt/trunk
> - or:
> rt/branches/rt-3.5

Agreed on this.

Regarding the floating or aliases of branches, you can do this with 
svn:externals.  You'd have an external stable directory that checks out the 

The problem is that you can't check them out directly and you've have to 
checkout the containing directory, which would then either contain all of your 
aliases, or contain a single directory which would then waste a directory level 
in your working copy.

I'd suggest just sticking with the Subversion standard method of dealing with 


Blair Zajac <blair at orcaware.com>
Plots of your system's performance - http://www.orcaware.com/orca/

More information about the Rt-devel mailing list