Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
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).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).
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?
The fact is that in subversion, a branch is just a dir! So this whole discussion about how many "repositories" to have is moot, as we can copy and move things round as many times as we want, all retaining history and with *cheap* copies (IOW the same file that is not modified is stored only once inside the repo and referenced in two places).
So we now have
cocoon-2.1 (repo) cocoon-2.2 (repo)
with SVN we will have this dir structure:
/cocoon
/trunk
/site
/src
...
/branches
/cocoon2.1
/site
/src
...Please read play with SVN a bit, as it has a different and better way to handle these things.
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------