On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:02 PM, Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Don't shut down trunk/master for product development. > > I don't believe you heard my point, but I'm not going to repeat it. > I read your post several times, completely :-P ... I just think it didn't argue against RTC being a form on control. (and yeah, maybe you weren't trying to argue that?) > Instead I will add a new point. > > 'trunk/master for product development' is not the only development > model available to a project. As an example, I've seen models where > 'trunk/master is for product maintenance', and all development occurs > in a branch explicitly designated as where work on the next release is > to occur. > I think that is just playing with names. In Apache Subversion the "product maintenance" is branches/1.8.x and branches/1.9.x (1.7.x and prior are deprecated). trunk is for "next release". In your naming model, where we've seen the name "develop" for "next release" (aka where all new dev occurs), then I'd say making it RTC is harmful. trunk/master was shorthand for "where dev occurs". If you want to use a different name... okay. :-) Cheers, -g ps. fwiw, trunk/tags/branches isn't mandated in svn either. It was just an ad hoc template we came up with back near the start of the project. We assumed third-party tools would focus around that naming, which is generally true, but svn itself has never cared.
