Summarizing SVN structure and usage suggestions by Daniel and Niclas
below. I'm unclear on how the rest of the community feels about this
proposal. If no objections, I'd like to move with these SVN changes.
Next step after this (I believe) is "mavenizing" the current code base
that Richard contributed.
Comments?
Felix SVN structure model:
/felix
/trunk
/framework
/std-bundles
/log
/cm
/http
...
/bundles
/obr
...
...
/releases
/framework-0.9
/framework-1.0
/log-1.0
/cm-1.0
...
/sandbox
/tbennett
/erodriquez
/akarasulu
...
SVN usage guidelines:
<quote="niclas">
Personally, I don't use tags and branches at all. Code that are
released, are copied into a proper directory named "releases", and
straight after made read-only. Branches are handled differently
depending on whether it is an "experiment" (in which case it is just
copied to my laboratory) or it is "maintenance" of released code, in
which case I first copy the "release" into a temporary area, do the
changes and then create a new "release" make readonly and so forth.
</quote>
<quote="daniel">
Also agree about the branch handling that seem to imply a very
diciplined use of branching. My experience this far of having one branch
for "the next generation" and one "stable branch" is that it diffuses
community energy and that it takes for ever to get to the next
generation of the product and that most of the original arguments for
creating a branch not are fulfilled in the end.
</quote>
