I tried to write these different high level task steps for committers
who are frequently interacting with OFBiz so the "svn co" steps are
really more to establish a context than meant to be actually done. In
other words, people doing this will generally already have a clean
checkout somewhere (I always do for patches and such).
We could certainly add this alternative with both full locations, but
is there really an advantage to it? Even with the other method it is
still atomic isn't it?
If we do standardize on the full location alternative (we'll, if we
need a standard way of doing it...) then we should also always
explicitly include the revision number so that other commits
happening of a sudden do not interfere (ie between the time the
release builder intends to do the branch and when the actual branch
is done additional commits can be done). With the approach that uses
a local copy as the revision reference I don't think this is a problem.
-David
On Sep 10, 2006, at 7:43 AM, Yoav Shapira wrote:
Jacopo,
On 9/10/06, Jacopo Cappellato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
in the section "Steps for a branch in preparation for a real
release" I
think that the steps #1, 2, 3 (checkout, copy, commit) can be
replaced
by one svn command (server side copy):
svn copy -m "" https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/trunk
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/ofbiz/branches/${branch-
name}
(I have to check the syntax... this is off the top of my head)
Your syntax is right, and this remote svn copy is the preferred method
for tagging and branching because it's atomic. Just remember to give
a real comment to -m, not the empty string ;) -m "cutting branch 4.0"
is an example...
Yoav
