2009/9/5 D. Michael McIntyre <[email protected]>
> On Friday 04 September 2009, Chris Cannam wrote:
>
> > I had a short discussion with Michael a while back about whether to
> > fix the structure of trunk (i.e. your proposal no. 1) and we decided
> > at the time not to press on with it...
>
> What we (I) did was move everything out of trunk/ except for
> trunk/rosegarden
> itself.
>
I see it now
http://rosegarden.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/rosegarden/
> At one point, the directory formerly known as rosegarden/ became trunk/ for
> a
> short time. Check the commit logs to see how long it took me to decide to
> revert that change, and what justification I used.
>
> For one thing, I remember "svn switch" did not work as advertised.
>
I could not locate the problems you encountered, but seems like structure
(1) is suggested also for svn switch:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch04s05.html
> Then I found it really unsettling to check out trunk/ to get a directory
> called trunk/ instead of Rosegarden. Maybe this is backwards and stupid,
> but
> I've been working here a long time, and I'm used to the status quo.
>
It is possible to
svn checkout .../trunk/ rosegarden
svn checkout .../trunk/ rg
svn checkout .../trunk/ rg-devel
where the last word tell you the directory name. I have used this approach
many times
in the following manner:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch03s04.html
So it is a standard procedure to change the name from trunk to the name of
the project.
Then there are all the documents we'd have to update with the new URL. Do
> you
> even know where all of them are? I don't.
>
If we could switch to the correct pattern, I could try to update the paths,
wherever they are.
> I already tried the idea and promptly dumped it. Nobody noticed until
> Heikki
> got a new girlfriend named Git and started obsessing over her.
>
> Is this enough of a argument to compel us to go back and do the switch-over
> again?
> I don't think so personally. What else have you got for arguments, so it's
> not just about Git? I'm not anchored permanently to the spot on this
> issue,
> but I do have heavy weights around my ankles.
IMHO, I would like to keep the question rather technical than personal. If
there are
no drawbacks on following the standard, it is better to follow the
standard.
However, I would not like to switch to the standard before the two branches
notation_toolbar_2 and project_packager_rewrite have been merged to trunk.
Because it is possible to use git in parallel to svn, switching from svn to
git is
not a priority one issue for me. But to follow this standard is currently
really
important for me, because not following the standard prevents me switching
properly between trunk and branches:
git checkout trunk
git checkout notation_toolbar_2
git checkout trunk
If it has any value that I would start to play with branches, it would be
beneficial to switch to pattern (1).
--
Heikki
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Rosegarden-devel mailing list
[email protected] - use the link below to unsubscribe
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/rosegarden-devel
