> > I don't buy into that argument. I see no problem with git-svn required extra options to deal with this, as does the maven-release-plugin. It's a convenience thing. I've seen it done both ways, and in part experience this way was relatively chaotic.
> > trunk > proj1 > proj2 > proj3 > branch > proj1 > proj1branch1 > ... > proj2 > tags > proj1 > > To my mind, it's totally a matter of taste. And I like > this better ;-) My main reason would be that it provides > a central trunk (which is what most everybody needs most > of the time). You can just check out everything with > svn co http://..../trunk opennlp, cd into opennlp and > build. You don't have to go to 3 different places to > get maxent, the toolkit and the UIMA wrappers. > > BTW, we have the kind of setup that Benson suggests in > UIMA, and I find it annoying. So I speak from experience. > Of course, as I say above, it's pretty much a matter of > taste, and I'll go with the majority. > > --Thilo > >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Jörn Kottmann<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 12/3/10 2:20 AM, James Kosin wrote: >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Benson, that should be a /tags directory. /tag wouldn't work.... >>>> >>>> Other than that it looks good. >>>> >>>> James >>> >>> /tag actual does work, since its really only a convention >>> (its usually a best practice to follow the convention). >>> Its even possible to use subversion without trunk, tags >>> and branch. Like we might do with the site folder. >>> >>> Jörn >>> > >
