Re: Subversion migration schedule (new cut-off Fri 14 July?)

[Joe Shaw <joeshaw novell com>]

Hi,

On Tue, 2006-06-06 at 12:25 +0800, James Henstridge wrote:
> The suggested layout for multi-module repositories from the Subversion
> book is actually:
>
>   ./$project/trunk <- the mainline for development
>   ./$project/branches/$branchname <- a branch of the project
>   ./$project/tags/$tagname <- a tag of the project

If we're using separate repos for each module, then my proposal doesn't
really apply.  Other than very high revision numbers and the ease of
moving a project repository off of gnome.org to somewhere else later,
what are the benefits of multiple repositories?

> What benefits does your layout give over the recommended layout?  It
> looks like it would add complexity without making things easier to
> understand.

I don't really see any added complexity in there.  It's essentially the
system we have today with CVS.

The main benefit is that you could check out the whole of gnome 2.N at
once, rather than knowing what modules to check out and doing so one by
one.  For an automated tinderbox-like system, you could drop a single
file at the root which lists the order in which to build the modules,
and then you don't have to worry about *any* synchronization of the
module list with tools outside of svn.

Joe