Re: [GUSDEV] bug #33 is marked as fixed but ...

[Fernan A. <fe...@ii...>]

+----[ Michael Saffitz <m...@sa...> (08.May.2006 19:31):
| 

[snipped]

| >But also, I thought that 'trunk' was the main line of
| >development, and thus that checking out code from 'trunk'
| >would get me the latest development snapshot as opposed to
| >getting code from a branch, which, well, being branched from the
| >'trunk' is supposed to carry a snapshot + fixes or
| >development made after branching. But this is all based on
| >my past experience with CVS.
| >
| >I'm not too familiar with svn but I was under the impression
| >that it was a drop-in replacement for CVS with additional
| >features.
| 
| Yes...  subversion is intended as a cvs replacement, and the assumption 
| that development occurs on the trunk is accurate... except in this case. 
|  This is due to historical reasons:  GUS had been a work in progress, 
| without discreet releases, and most people were thus used to working 
| directly in the trunk.  It was just easier to branch for development and 
| keep the trunk stable than change the community's behavior.

I see ... but maybe this could be changed in the future? It
gives a more smooth devel roadmap ... at least for me it's
easier to work with branches/tags, as it's always clear what
I'm getting when I choose to download/checkout from a
particular branch/tag.

Or, alternatively, do not branch the code. If people feel
more comfortable without discreet releases, then keep
development in the trunk and only 'tag' the tree at
particular times (a release), a major event (ie. a
publication), like it's been already done for GUS. In this
case branching creates a confusion (latest code in the
branch but not in the trunk), and a load on the maintainer
of the repository as s/he will have to merge back all the
changes to trunk when work in a new release starts ...

| >Which leads me to another question (to the SVN meisters):
| >how's the svn repository laid out, and how is the
| >development cycle mapped onto the repository? What's the
| >main line of development? Trunk?
| 
| At least when I was working on it (which was up to 1/06), trunk was 
| stable and branches/tags contained historical and dev releases.

OK.

| >When I browse https://www.cbil.upenn.edu/svn/gus/ I see 
| >'branches', 'tags' and 'trunk' which to me look pretty much
| >like CVS. That's why I supposed that 'trunk' was the main
| >line of development.
| >
| >Say you've already branched from trunk for 3.6, then any
| >change made into this branch would have to be merged back
| >into the trunk in order to be also incorporated into future
| >releases ... unless there's some svn magic I'm unaware of.
| 
| This is correct.

A nice load over the shoulders of the repository meister :)

| AFAIK/remember, Schema 3.6 is basically ready to go, but the 
| AppFramework components do not yet support it.  3.6 changes were marked 
| resolved, but not closed with the assumption that that would occur when 
| it was released.

Got it.

Thanks for the clarification. And good luck with your new
job! (I just knew about it)

Fernan

| 
| --Mike
|
+----]