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

From: "Bryant Eastham" <beastham@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:16:27 -0600
Gerald Combs wrote:
> Bryant Eastham wrote:
> > Not to open a complete can of worms here, but is there a reason that
> > 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
> > fit the developer's idea of how the repository works.
> > 
> > Those developers are obviously in charge, but it seems that the
> > that are being proposed ("old-trunk-1.0"?) indicate that the
> > 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.
> directories can be named anything.  Why not use ones that are more

The answer: you restrict yourself to be more easily understood by
others. Which out of "prerelease/0.99.1pre1" and "tags/0.99.1pre1" more
clearly indicates that it is a (conceptual) tag of a past release? Is
prerelease used for both branches (development) of the prerelease, or
just for static tags? If I wanted to find, years from now, the branch
where 0.99.2 was finalized, where would I look? Having both
"branches/old-trunk-1.0" and "trunk-1.0" at the same time might be more
descriptive, but is more easily understood?

Or is your argument more fundamental? Do you really not want to have
tags - snapshots of the way things were when something happened? Where
would these things live if you move "tags" to "history/tags"?

I can't understand your desired repository layout. Sorry.