On Monday 14 July 2008 14:37:45 Pavel Roskin wrote: > On Sun, 2008-07-13 at 03:54 +0200, Yoshinori K. Okuji wrote: > > Hello, > > > > Thank all of you for making effort on moving the version control system > > to Subversion. I think this is a big improvement, and I like it. > > > > Now, I would like to talk about the structure. Currently, it looks like > > this: > > > > trunk/ > > grub/ > > grub2/ > > tags/ > > release*/ > > branches/ > > prepare*/ > > > > IMO, this is not very convenient. This means that, when we want to > > create, say, version 1.99, we would tag both grub and grub2. This does > > not sound good to me. > > If you look into any directory under tags or branches, is will have > either grub or grub2. So not everything needs to be "tagged" (there is > no real tagging in Subversion, just copying).
Sure. My question is more related to human understanding. > Anyway, the current layout is in disagreement with the standard > Subversion practices. > > > So, I think that this would be more appropriate: > > > > grub/ > > trunk/ > > tags/ > > branches/ > > grub2/ > > trunk/ > > tags/ > > branches/ > > > > Since grub and grub2 are totally different, it would be better to > > segregate them completely this way. > > > > What is your opinion? > > I think grub should be a branch, e.g. grub-legacy. It is our stable > branch essentially. Even if the code is different, the purpose is the > same. I don't agree on this. GRUB Legacy and GRUB 2 are developed fully independently (if any). If we follow your way, the repository would look like this: branches/ grub-legacy/ prepare_0_97/ prepare_0_98/ prepare_1_98/ prepare_1_99/ ... I feel that this has no logical structure. When we make a branch for GRUB 2, we put it under branches, when we modify the "trunk" of GRUB Legacy, we do under branches, when we make a branch for GRUB Legacy, we use branches... Regards, Okuji _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list Grub-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
