[Heikki == [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Tue, 19 Apr 2005 16:33:19 -0700] Heikki> It seems like we should be able to migrate [to subversion] Heikki> in the beginning of May...
Are any specific methodologies planned to be changed? Faster/better branching support could perhaps enable some new approaches. One that occurred in passing is that a tag or branch could be used during milestone builds to avoid locking the tree. Also, tinderboxen could build against tagged releases, similarly avoiding locking the tree when a tinderbox goes red. Longer term (with more server resources), developers could work in branches with developer-specific tinderboxes, and code could be reviewed during whenever code is promoted to the trunk. Not looking to debate merits of these ideas specifically (I think I know what the arguments against would be), merely to stimulate brainstorming. Of course, a subversion switch is significant enough that a "straight" migration (that is, preserving trunk/head-oriented development) is probably healthier so only one concern at a time is being addressed. Is a "standard" trunk/branches/tags repository structure intended to be used? -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] "One cannot mark the point without marking the path." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
