Wireshark-dev: Re: [Wireshark-dev] Next release (plus SVN and roadmap changes)

From: Gerald Combs <gerald@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:26:43 -0500
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?