You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@forrest.apache.org by Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net> on 2004/03/09 12:21:00 UTC
Re: About SVN
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 01 January 2002 09:07 am, Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> I have noticed on the Svn server that we have a few braches
> (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xml/forrest/branches/). Is there a real
> need for that?
>
> can we remove:
>
> # FORRESTON_BRANCH/
> # LINKMAP_BRANCH/
> # PDF_IMAGE_BRANCH/
> # apache/
> # unlabeled-1.1.2/
> # with_pdf_images/
>
> Same applies for the tags, is there a need to keep this:
> # before_cocoon_upgrade-20030311/
> # before_cocoon_upgrade-20030524/
> # before_cocoon_upgrade-20030622/
> # before_libre_departure/
> # before_rawhtml/
> # libre_start/
> # stable/
> # stable-20030616/
> # stable-20030620/
> # stable-20030625/
> # stable-20030626/
> # stable-20030721/
> # v10/
> # with_file_scheme/
>
> WDYT?
>
> Cheers,
> Cheche
Version control is all about history. While it does seem quite unlikely that
these tags and branches would ever be referenced in the future, it doesn't
hurt to keep them. And since the repository keeps a history of everything,
our lists of tags and branches won't be very clean (meaning: old and unused
ones will still be there) but that's ok. If we start removing stuff from the
repository, it loses it's integrity.
- --
Dave Brondsema
dave@brondsema.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFATaieVvBSb5uzznARAuZrAKCK/50LVW40eorhg+OGk2gOd4MzGACfXfeF
c1PpU+cj+BwvzS+7npuc8qU=
=Kmoh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: About SVN
Posted by Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 01 January 2002 08:14 am, Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> Dave,
>
> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> >>>Version control is all about history. While it does seem quite unlikely
> >>>that these tags and branches would ever be referenced in the future, it
> >>>doesn't hurt to keep them. And since the repository keeps a history of
> >>>everything, our lists of tags and branches won't be very clean (meaning:
> >>>old and unused ones will still be there) but that's ok. If we start
> >>>removing stuff from the repository, it loses it's integrity.
>
> Hold on here. How is going the repository lose integrity if I remove a
> Branch that is not longer been used?
>
> Branches:
> I am happy to keep FORREST_*_BRANCH/ for historical reason, but no
> others that where created when a mayor change was made on forrest.
>
> Tags:
> I happy to have FORREST_*/ and stable, but I do not think that it is
> necesary to keep the others.
>
> Can you elaborate a bit more on "losing integrity"?
>
>
> Thank you david!
>
> Cheche
If we can determine that a branch or tag has no value at all, then of course
it would be okay to delete and we don't lose integrity. But if we're not
sure or if we incorrectly think a branch is useless, than we might lose some
useful history. And from a purist/theoretical standpoint, as soon as we
allow ourselves to change history, the repository no longer holds a record of
all of forrest development. We could not trust that some other important
branches weren't deleted either. I certainly hope that we wouldn't make
controversial deletes, but once the integrity is broken once it is broken
altogether.
Basically I'm just saying it's better safe than sorry. I think all tools
should be able to get just the trunk, without downloading everything. So
then the only concern is for simplicity, which could be achieved by moving
old tags and branches into an appropriate subdirectory.
- --
Dave Brondsema
dave@brondsema.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFATwQPVvBSb5uzznARAouCAJ4jYFnaemTqhJ91jIumkHMBtcP1HwCgjZNC
KkjuQKQKqRan92pOmnL0ZqE=
=jb1Z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: About SVN
Posted by Dave Brondsema <da...@brondsema.net>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Tuesday 09 March 2004 09:33 pm, David Crossley wrote:
> Dave Brondsema wrote:
> > Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> > > I have noticed on the Svn server that we have a few braches
> > > (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xml/forrest/branches/). Is there a
> > > real need for that?
> > >
> > > can we remove:
> > >
> > > # FORRESTON_BRANCH/
> > > # LINKMAP_BRANCH/
> > > # PDF_IMAGE_BRANCH/
> > > # apache/
> > > # unlabeled-1.1.2/
> > > # with_pdf_images/
> > >
> > > Same applies for the tags, is there a need to keep this:
> > > # before_cocoon_upgrade-20030311/
> > > # before_cocoon_upgrade-20030524/
> > > # before_cocoon_upgrade-20030622/
> > > # before_libre_departure/
> > > # before_rawhtml/
> > > # libre_start/
> > > # stable/
> > > # stable-20030616/
> > > # stable-20030620/
> > > # stable-20030625/
> > > # stable-20030626/
> > > # stable-20030721/
> > > # v10/
> > > # with_file_scheme/
> > >
> > > WDYT?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Cheche
> >
> > Version control is all about history. While it does seem quite unlikely
> > that these tags and branches would ever be referenced in the future, it
> > doesn't hurt to keep them. And since the repository keeps a history of
> > everything, our lists of tags and branches won't be very clean (meaning:
> > old and unused ones will still be there) but that's ok. If we start
> > removing stuff from the repository, it loses it's integrity.
>
> Oh sorry, i had not read this earlier message from Dave before
> my other reply.
>
> I would rather that we have a clean SVN without the unnecessary
> Branches and Tags because it will confuse users. However if that
> puts the history at risk then i say keep them all.
>
> Is it possible to have a STATUS file or README or something at
> the top-level (/repos/asf/xml/forrest/README) to explain the
> strange Branches and Tags?
>
> By the way, it is interesting to look at the todo.xml in the
> first Branch which i presume is the one called "apache".
>
> --David
I think we could create subfolders like this:
/repos/asf/xml/forrest/
tags/
old-tags/
before_cocoon_upgrade-20030311
before_cocoon_upgrade-20030524
.....
FORREST_051
FORREST_05
FORREST_04
...
branches/
old-branches/
...
...
This would keep it simple without losing any history. I will test this in a
local repository unless somebody already knows that it will work.
- --
Dave Brondsema
dave@brondsema.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAToGTVvBSb5uzznARAk89AKCQ0mS8FxkxzXep9LCfWkvAUAnP2wCgmU3D
t1XjmRkUIXK0socm1bQYmxw=
=Jw4b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: About SVN
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Dave Brondsema wrote:
> Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
> > I have noticed on the Svn server that we have a few braches
> > (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/xml/forrest/branches/). Is there a real
> > need for that?
> >
> > can we remove:
> >
> > # FORRESTON_BRANCH/
> > # LINKMAP_BRANCH/
> > # PDF_IMAGE_BRANCH/
> > # apache/
> > # unlabeled-1.1.2/
> > # with_pdf_images/
> >
> > Same applies for the tags, is there a need to keep this:
> > # before_cocoon_upgrade-20030311/
> > # before_cocoon_upgrade-20030524/
> > # before_cocoon_upgrade-20030622/
> > # before_libre_departure/
> > # before_rawhtml/
> > # libre_start/
> > # stable/
> > # stable-20030616/
> > # stable-20030620/
> > # stable-20030625/
> > # stable-20030626/
> > # stable-20030721/
> > # v10/
> > # with_file_scheme/
> >
> > WDYT?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Cheche
>
> Version control is all about history. While it does seem quite unlikely that
> these tags and branches would ever be referenced in the future, it doesn't
> hurt to keep them. And since the repository keeps a history of everything,
> our lists of tags and branches won't be very clean (meaning: old and unused
> ones will still be there) but that's ok. If we start removing stuff from the
> repository, it loses it's integrity.
Oh sorry, i had not read this earlier message from Dave before
my other reply.
I would rather that we have a clean SVN without the unnecessary
Branches and Tags because it will confuse users. However if that
puts the history at risk then i say keep them all.
Is it possible to have a STATUS file or README or something at
the top-level (/repos/asf/xml/forrest/README) to explain the
strange Branches and Tags?
By the way, it is interesting to look at the todo.xml in the
first Branch which i presume is the one called "apache".
--David
Re: About SVN
Posted by David Crossley <cr...@apache.org>.
Juan Jose Pablos wrote:
<snip/>
>
> Sure, but some client like rapidsvn does not seem to be just the trunk
> version, It tries to download the whole lot.
>
> cheche@yarel:~/xml/forrest/branches$ ls
> apache FORREST_03_BRANCH FORREST_05_BRANCH
> FORREST_02_BRANCH FORREST_04_BRANCH LINKMAP_BRANCH
> cheche@yarel:~/xml/forrest/branches$ du -sm .
> 238 .
>
> 238 Mg from previous versions (I stoped when I realize of that issue.).
>
> So I am -1 about anything that did not result on a source/binary released.
Gee, being -1 is a bit heavy ... let us talk about it first.
Are you sure that you have a capable SVN client and are you sure
that you are doing a checkout of "trunk"?
I am using the command-line client and it does 'svn co' of just
the trunk with no problems.
--David
Re: About SVN
Posted by Juan Jose Pablos <ch...@che-che.com>.
Dave,
> Version control is all about history. While it does seem quite unlikely that
> these tags and branches would ever be referenced in the future, it doesn't
> hurt to keep them. And since the repository keeps a history of everything,
> our lists of tags and branches won't be very clean (meaning: old and unused
> ones will still be there) but that's ok. If we start removing stuff from the
> repository, it loses it's integrity.
>
Sure, but some client like rapidsvn does not seem to be just the trunk
version, It tries to download the whole lot.
cheche@yarel:~/xml/forrest/branches$ ls
apache FORREST_03_BRANCH FORREST_05_BRANCH
FORREST_02_BRANCH FORREST_04_BRANCH LINKMAP_BRANCH
cheche@yarel:~/xml/forrest/branches$ du -sm .
238 .
238 Mg from previous versions (I stoped when I realize of that issue.).
So I am -1 about anything that did not result on a source/binary released.
> - --
> Dave Brondsema
> dave@brondsema.net
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFATaieVvBSb5uzznARAuZrAKCK/50LVW40eorhg+OGk2gOd4MzGACfXfeF
> c1PpU+cj+BwvzS+7npuc8qU=
> =Kmoh
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----