[Klug-general] SVN Notes

[David Halliday]

On 27 March 2011 13:04, Martin A. Brooks <martin at antibodymx.net> wrote:

> On Sat, March 26, 2011 20:22, David Halliday wrote:
> > Hi, further to today's demo I have updated my notes on SVN:
> >
> http://david-halliday.co.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=linux:scripts:subversion_server
> >
> > <
> http://david-halliday.co.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=linux:scripts:subversion_server
> >I
> > think I have removed all the smelling pistakes, but dyslexia being what
> it
> > is (and spell checkers being what they are) I can't make any promises
> that
> > howlers aren't in the document.
>
> From a purely technical point of view, the language of your make ttrunk,
> tags and branches seem "special".  From svn's point of view, they're not.
> They're just directories containing $stuff.  The only reason they're
> "special" is in the head of the user and could equally well be called
> knurt, sgat and sehcnarb.


Yes and no. While they are directories in the repository and for the most
part no different there are two aspects to using the three defined names:
1: They are considered uniform (New person starts on your project or you go
to a new project) if everyone uses the same terms then the learning curve of
a new project is smaller. It makes life easier when you are searching for
help/tutorials.
2: Most clients recognise "trunk", "branches" and "tags" and
prioritise/organise options around what you have selected etc... And when it
comes to tags the server (and most clients) do return messages saying "This
is a tag, you probably aren't supposed to change this, are you sure you want
to?"

For those two reasons while you can call the directories anything you like,
it is the sensible option to stick with those predefined names.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.lug.org.uk/pipermail/kent/attachments/20110328/a6e883f7/attachment.htm>