Bryant Eastham wrote:
> Not to open a complete can of worms here, but is there a reason that a
> more standard repository layout (trunk, tags, branches) is not being
> used? I have been asking for a tag of 0.99.1pre1, with my appeals
> probably being ignored because I was asking for something that doesn't
> fit the developer's idea of how the repository works.
>
> Those developers are obviously in charge, but it seems that the names
> that are being proposed ("old-trunk-1.0"?) indicate that the structure
> is flawed.
>
> In other words:
> Isn't the proposed "prerelease" just "tags"?
> Isn't the new "trunk-1.0" just "branches/release-1.0"?
> Isn't the nonexist 0.99.1pre1 tree "tags/0.99.1pre1"?
> If things have "no bearing on current layout" shouldn't they be
> removed?
crunch:~/devel/wireshark$ svn help tag
"tag": unknown command.
crunch:~/devel/wireshark$ svn help branch
"branch": unknown command.
(Sorry for being a smartass.) Let me throw your question back at you:
Why would we want to restrict ourselves to directory names like "tags"
and "branches" in the repository? As I mentioned in my previous mail,
"/branches" and "/tags" are artifacts left over from the conversion from
CVS to Subversion. Tags as such don't exist in Subversion, unless you
count release numbers. You "branch" by copying a directory to another
location. The directories can be named anything. Why not use ones that
are more descriptive?
