On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 05:45:16PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: [snip]
> A little more ranting... I don't like that we're using a temporal layout > because it means moves are always happening. svn lets us move stuff, > which is a great feature, but the way we're using it is an abuse of this > feature (imo). Not only is it a pain for development when the world > changes behind your back (sometimes even making svn updates fail), but > it also leaves a confusing trail behind. I feel sorry for anyone who > tries to dig through the archive trying to make sense of the history, > and anyone who tries to convert our repository into another source > control system. > > To be fair, I didn't dislike the scheme at first - and it doesn't seem > too bad for more static stuff like sarge-security, etc. But when things > are under constant development (dists/trunk, dists/sid) moves are just > happening too often. > > To avoid being one that complains without providing an alternate > suggestion - what if we tracked things by upstream kernel version? > > linux-2.6/2.6.12/ > linux-2.6/2.6.14/ > > And if people want to have the dist information stored in svn, use > symlinks: > > linux-2.6/2.6.12 > linux-2.6/sid -> 2.6.12 > linux-2.6/2.6.15 Your approach also seems workable, well at least more workable than the current situation. Though I'm not sure what happens when 2.6.15-rc2 gets incremented to 2.6.15-rc3. Do we just use 2.6.15/ from the get go? -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
