Re: [Vote] Repository Usage and Versioning

[Upayavira]

Carsten Ziegeler wrote:

Rethinking our version structure and moving to subversion seems to
indicate that we should rethink our repository usage.
I think we should use one repository per major version, so one
repository for all 2.x versions (except 2.0.x versions that we
leave the way it is).
 

I really think we should get away from this idea of multiple 
repositories. Subversion should, I believe, fix the problems that led us 
to our multiple repository situation, and therefore we should have just 
two repositories: code and site. (Of course we leave 2.0 where it is).

If we don't do this, we loose all sorts of benefits, e.g. merging 
branches, lazy branching, etc, etc. And if there's no 'cost' in 
Subversion for branching (like there is in CVS), then why not do it?

Then one repository for testing new stuff, like the new block
system - this will be the sandbox or scratchpad repository.
 

Do this in a named branch or branches which can be merged into head when 
the code is ready.

And finally - as we already have - the site repository.
 

Yup.

As recently reported we already have incompatible changes from 2.1.4
to 2.1.5 (which we accepted to have!) and as I pointed out lately
I want to remove some deprecated stuff to continue the development
of the current version. And we have some major changes, like the 
Cocoon forms that justify a minor version changes anyway.

So, I think, we should:
- tag the current cvs in order to create a branch if required
- change the version to 2.2, so this will be our next release
- try to follow the versioning guide (which is a work-in-progress)
- move to subversion whenever we want
- if the need for a 2.1.5 release arises we create a branch,
 revert the incompatible changes and use the branch
 

Sounds okay, I guess.

This allows us to continue the development of Cocoon in any direction
without worrying about versions and how this fits into the development
of blocks. Blocks (and perpaps other features) can be developed 
independently in a sandbox/scratchpad and when they are mature enough
can be moved in the main trunk. This can then result in a new 
major or a new minor version. We can decide this when the time comes.
 

As I say, I think they can/should be developed in SVN branches that can 
be merged back into head when sufficiently developed.

Otherwise, all sounds fine.

Regards, Upayavira