You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stdcxx.apache.org by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com> on 2007/09/09 00:00:28 UTC
renaming branches/4.2.0 to branches/4.2
While reading the Release Branches section of the Subversion book
(http://tinyurl.com/8knxw) I realized that our 4.2.0 release branch
would have ideally been named 4.2 to accommodate the evolution of
the branch (i.e., bug fix, or micro releases such as 4.2.1, 4.2.2,
etc.) To make this possible I propose to rename branches/4.2.0 to
branches/4.2 sometime soon.
Are there any objections or concerns? If I don't hear any by, say
EOB Monday, I'll go ahead with the move Tuesday.
Martin
Re: renaming branches/4.2.0 to branches/4.2
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Hmm. I admit I hadn't thought of the local checkout problem. Your
>> suggestion sounds most sensible. The only concern I have is that
>> we may not graduate before the release. (I guess I'd better hurry
>> up with the proposal!) Maybe we could do both: leave 4.2.0 in
>> place for now and also create 4.2 (or 4.2.x like APR would). Then,
>> during the transition, we would drop 4.2.0. Does that seem like
>> a good plan?
>
> Well, we release the tags/ tree, not the branches/ tree, so it isn't
> that much of a hassle either way.
>
> You don't want two copies. Best I can suggest is you ***might***
> want a alias 4.2 for now that would go away, and be replaced with the
> 4.2.0 branch in a mv later. SVN externals would let you accomplish
> this without breaking things.
I see. If I understand correctly you're suggesting to create
branches/4.2.x/ and set its svn:externals property to
branches/4.2.0/ until we move repositories. During the move
we will first remove branches/4.2.x/ and the rename (move)
branches/4.2.0/ to branches/4.2.x/.
If this is not it, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll plan
on setting it up first thing tomorrow. I've never used
svn:externals so this'll be an interesting exercise!
Thanks
Martin
Re: renaming branches/4.2.0 to branches/4.2
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Martin Sebor wrote:
>
> Hmm. I admit I hadn't thought of the local checkout problem. Your
> suggestion sounds most sensible. The only concern I have is that
> we may not graduate before the release. (I guess I'd better hurry
> up with the proposal!) Maybe we could do both: leave 4.2.0 in
> place for now and also create 4.2 (or 4.2.x like APR would). Then,
> during the transition, we would drop 4.2.0. Does that seem like
> a good plan?
Well, we release the tags/ tree, not the branches/ tree, so it isn't
that much of a hassle either way.
You don't want two copies. Best I can suggest is you ***might***
want a alias 4.2 for now that would go away, and be replaced with the
4.2.0 branch in a mv later. SVN externals would let you accomplish
this without breaking things.
(Never use externals in a release tags/ tree however).
Bill
Re: renaming branches/4.2.0 to branches/4.2
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
> Martin Sebor wrote:
>> Just a heads up: I plan to make this change today. If anyone has
>> any concerns, please speak up now.
>
> The trouble of course is that you break local checkouts unless those
> folks use 'svn switch' to flip the repository location.
>
> One alternative is to leave 4.2.0 in place for now, and fix this at
> the time you move the entire svn from it's incubation location over
> to a TLP (top level project) subversion location, which breaks everyone
> anyways.
Hmm. I admit I hadn't thought of the local checkout problem. Your
suggestion sounds most sensible. The only concern I have is that
we may not graduate before the release. (I guess I'd better hurry
up with the proposal!) Maybe we could do both: leave 4.2.0 in
place for now and also create 4.2 (or 4.2.x like APR would). Then,
during the transition, we would drop 4.2.0. Does that seem like
a good plan?
Martin
Re: renaming branches/4.2.0 to branches/4.2
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Martin Sebor wrote:
> Just a heads up: I plan to make this change today. If anyone has
> any concerns, please speak up now.
The trouble of course is that you break local checkouts unless those
folks use 'svn switch' to flip the repository location.
One alternative is to leave 4.2.0 in place for now, and fix this at
the time you move the entire svn from it's incubation location over
to a TLP (top level project) subversion location, which breaks everyone
anyways.
Re: renaming branches/4.2.0 to branches/4.2
Posted by Martin Sebor <se...@roguewave.com>.
Just a heads up: I plan to make this change today. If anyone has
any concerns, please speak up now.
Martin
Martin Sebor wrote:
> While reading the Release Branches section of the Subversion book
> (http://tinyurl.com/8knxw) I realized that our 4.2.0 release branch
> would have ideally been named 4.2 to accommodate the evolution of
> the branch (i.e., bug fix, or micro releases such as 4.2.1, 4.2.2,
> etc.) To make this possible I propose to rename branches/4.2.0 to
> branches/4.2 sometime soon.
>
> Are there any objections or concerns? If I don't hear any by, say
> EOB Monday, I'll go ahead with the move Tuesday.
>
> Martin