Elliot Metsger wrote:
Ate Douma wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi all,
It seems that everyone is OK with moving the Subversion
1.1-286-trunk-merge branch to the SVN trunk. I intend on doing that
on Monday night (East Coast USA time), so please voice your comments
and concerns by that time.
Here's my basic plan. Since I am not an Subversion guru, please
comment or correct me if I am wrong.
1. SVN tag the current trunk. I'm not sure how to name this tag so it
is not confused with other tags in Subversion that are official
releases. Suggested names are appreciated.
2. SVN delete the trunk.
3. Immediately svn copy the 1.1-286-trunk-merge-branch to the trunk.
I am aware that there is a 'SVN move' option, but I want to make sure
that things go OK, so I'd rather copy and diff the copy with the old
branch as a double check.
Well, you can do that, but I think by copying we might lose the
history recorded against the branch which I definitely think is a bad
idea.
If you move it, all its history is moved along.
In my experience, moving is painless and harmless with svn as long as
you do it directly on the server, *don't* try to do it locally and
commit that.
I agree, it should be a server-side operation. SVN history should be
preserved no matter if it is a copy or a move. A move is just an 'Add'
followed by a 'Delete' where a copy is just an 'Add'.
True, I just tested it out and for the SVN history it really doesn't matter.
I brought this up though because I thought a client tool like the Eclipse Subversive plugin would be better capable of "tracking" the history with a move, but
it turns out that doesn't matter either: it isn't capable of comparing two revisions if both are no longer in the same path :(
Still, performing a move versus a copy is cleaner.
I agree.
3. Create a tag when Pluto is submitted with the JSR-286
specification as the JSR-286 Reference Implementation to the Java
Community Process for approval. Ate has suggested that we do this. We
could call this tag JSR286-RI (other suggested names are welcome).
I'm not sure of the timing of this (please comment Stefan)?
PJSR286-RI sounds fine, +1
Looking at the current used tag names, pluto-x.x.x, maybe pluto-JSR-286-RI might be more in line and descriptive, especially if people do check the tag out
using its default folder name.
But JSR286-RI also is still fine by me too.
sounds good to me too.
In general I'm concerned about the history issues (I'm more concerned
that all these branches sprouted up to begin with). The good news is
that when those branches are removed, they aren't truly gone. They are
still available in previous revisions of the repository, even if the
branch is gone in current and future revisions of the repository.
Yes, and if the need would arise we can always recreate such a branch from its
last revision.
Regards,
Ate
