Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
Can we agree that we need to somehow construct the stable, unstable and
sandbox codebases?
If so, can we move on to how?
geir
Check out the httpd project:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/
essential features:
'trunk' is 'development' (unstable) reporitory. It is constantly moving forward under loose rules for what can
be committed.
'branches' contains the 'stable' code. httpd 2.0.x (and 1.3.x) constantly move forward but under a
'review-then-commit' policy. All code that goes into the stable branch must be reviewed and voted on before it
can come into the stable branch.
'tags' contains all the tagged releases
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/httpd/httpd/branches/
So using this model, one of the geronimo branches could be 1.0.x. When 1.0 is 'done', tag the release and
continue on the next 'stable' drop, migrating function out of trunk and into 1.x using whatever process you
like (RTC, CTR, votes, whatever). The RTC + vote policy httpd 2.0.x uses may be too restrictive for geronimo
1.0.x, so do whatever makes sense for this project.
There will come a day when you want another stable branch of geronimo (presumably forked from trunk). When
that day comes, just create a new tree under 'branches', named differently (maybe 2.0.x or 1.2.x, whatever).
I know this doesn't really answer the more interesting question about how to structure the repository to
support assemblying components into a 'custom' install.
Bill
