On 8/10/06, Kathey Marsden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Andrew McIntyre wrote:
> I think there's some confusion over the fact that in svn, copy ==
> branch (== tag).
>
Yes. I was confused by that. So the proposal is just for two branches.
One now for beta and then another one later for th 10.2 branch. Is
that correct?
Yes. Using branch as a synonym for copy, one branch for beta into
derby/code/tags, into which the only other thing that ever goes in
there are the necessary bits to make it build and report as beta. No
other changes go into that branch ever. Later, when it's ready,
another branch into derby/code/branches, that one gets maintained as
the 10.2 maintenance branch going forward, and we have 10.2.2 off of
it, etc.
So, the first one is more of what traditionally would be called a tag,
except that it has one extra change in it than what is in the trunk -
the change to make it report as beta. The second one is what more
traditionally is called a branch.
In svn, everything is a copy, it knows not of these branches and tags.
I think the svn mavens suggested setting up branch and tag areas in
the repository for those purposes because people are already familiar
with those concepts from other source control systems. :-)
andrew
