/branches <- helds 1.1, 1.3, and 1.2, branch as well as /vendor (whatever this is for) and a (!) wicket-stuff directory...
Any branch goes if it makes sense to the people creating it. Every now and then, it would be good if people delete obsolete branches again (if they are *very careful* about it of course).
/tags <- dont know what this is for, why we have it ?
When you want to explicitly create a version without branching it.
/trunk <- here we have dev. version of every stuff thing there, at various levels, some are wicket 1.1, some wicket 1.2, some 2.0....
Wicket stuff's trunk is meant to be in sync with Wicket's trunk, so it trunk in wicket-stuff should ideally only contain projects on 2.0. I have made a mild effort to update projects for our branches (like moved a couple to 1.3 recently), but it wouldn't surprise me if I overlooked projects. This is what the subversion documents call 'TTB' or Trunk Tags Branches, and are considered best practices layout.
Wouldnt a organisation scheme of this be better? (at least i really have poblems browsing there and finding right things...) /Wicket_1_0 /Wicket_1_1 /Wicket_1_2 /Wicket_1_3 /Wicket_2_0 with a corresponding scheme of /releases/ /trunk/ under every node ? - we might want to start this from scratch and have all current existing things put into a root-node "archiv" or sth like that, so we only have "living" projects put into the new, ordered structure. Im quite new to SVN, however, would this type of reorganisation be possible? And what do you think about it?
It's all possible. I'd say let the people who actually work most with the repositories most (like the contrib-dojo guys) have their say. Personally, I think what we have now is fine, as it is the same as Wicket. Eelco
