Another reason for Option A other than those already listed is that it is consistent with what other projects have already started to adopt (that I've seen), and that goes a long way to ease of use in itself.
Cheers, Brett
Simon Kitching wrote:
svn 1.1 (released 2004-09-29) supports "symbolic links". Perhaps that would resolve the issue by allowing us to (manually) build an alternative directory containing just symbolic links to the "trunk" directory of each subproject? Of course whenever a new subproject was created, a symbolic link would need to be manually added - but that is no great problem. Possibly that could even be automated; I'm willing to try to get that working.
Regards,
Simon
On Sat, 2004-12-18 at 12:10, Henri Yandell wrote:
And yet option A is going to be impossible (?) to check out as one whole blob.
I wonder if there's any magic coming from the SVN guys that'll let us do option B and yet provide a link of some kind to automatically be able to check out all the trunks in one go.
Hen
On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 14:01:53 -0700, Kris Nuttycombe
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Option A makes the projects look a lot more atomic, which seems like a good idea when one contemplates what will be necessary when promoting projects from the sandbox.
Kris
Tim O'Brien wrote:
I don't think we ever settled this question.
Which SVN structure are we interested in?
** Option A:
jakarta/ commons/ digester/ trunk/ tags/ branches/ beanutils/ trunk/ tags/ branches/
OR
** Option B:
jakarta/ commons/ trunk/ digester/ beanutils/ tags/ digester/ beanutils/ branches/ digester/ beanutils/
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
