On Sat, 2005-02-12 at 02:53, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 18:40 -0800, Mike Stump wrote: > > On Friday, February 11, 2005, at 05:29 PM, Daniel Berlin wrote: > > > I'll keep the last branchpoint of each branch for the initial import > > > > Won't work either... Sometimes we reuses merge labels in non-obvious > > ways. top-200501-merge and top-200502-merge both exist, the two were > > used for, say, treeprofiling, and then a random other (important) > > branch uses the first for its merge. > > > > Also, even if you could track those down (you can't), it still would > > obliterate merge auditing, which is a very useful feature to find how > > exactly how someone screwed up a past merge. > > > > I don't see the advantage of wiping those labels yet. > > > > > If you left all labels mentioned in any log entry, that would almost > > solve most instances that I know about, but, sometimes people misspell > > the tags in obvious ways in the log messages. > > > > Fine, i'll just keep all the non-snapshot tags for now.
There's no reason why we have to keep all the tags in one place. The SVN book goes on about trunk, branch and tag top-level directories, but there's no reason to stick to just those. We could, for example have rel-branch and rel-tag directories for the main releases and then keep branch and tag for development work (or we could do it the other way around). For the case above, we could have non-snapshot as the top-level directory. The limit seems to be your ingenuity... R.
