On Mon, 2005-11-07 at 12:03 +0900, Horms wrote: > 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?
I suppose that makes sense if we're really just tracking rc's to prep a tree for when 2.6.15 is available. But yeah, this proposal certainly has its own idiosyncrasies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
