Dennis Jones wrote:
"NeoAlchemy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I am not sure if this is the totally right place for the question, so
please redirect me if so.
I am using CVS at work. The way it is being used bothers me. We
create a branch 'a' for development. If a new release is needed to be
made we make a branch 'b'. If we are still having changes go on for
branch 'a' we post the changes to branch 'a' and branch 'b'. The
cycle continues where we make make another branch, branch 'c' for
development off of branch 'b'. This doesn't seem like a responsible
way to use CVS. No one else on the team knows any better. What would
be the appropriate way to handle a sequential release cycle?
Business requirements usually dictate how CVS is used. My personal prefence
is to have normal, on-going development occur on the main trunk. This
includes new features, enhancement, etc., and then I create a branch when it
is time for a release. Some people suggest branching before the release,
and others suggest waiting until afterward. The difference between the two
depends on whether or not new development should be allowed to continue
while a release is pending. Personally, I usually wait to branch until the
release happens, or just shortly before (to allow time for fixes).
<SNIP>
Amplify what Dennis wrote.
The CVS FAQ Wiki has a section on SCM Best Practices[1] with several
references you may want to become familiar with to understand which
branching/merging methods would probably work better for your team.
And never neglect the manual[2], when you are learning something new.
[1]
http://ximbiot.com/cvs/wiki/index.php?title=CVS_FAQ#Source_Configuration_Management_Best_Practices
[2] http://ximbiot.com/cvs/manual/
--
Todd Denniston
Crane Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC Crane)
Harnessing the Power of Technology for the Warfighter
