Peter Dimov wrote:
Robert Ramey wrote:
I don't think anyone should merge from the trunk ever. Why interject a bunch of experimental code into my project. I have my hands full just trying to find and fix my own errors.
The "trunk" in Vladimir's mail likely refers to the "stable" branch. If development proceeds on branches, there is no other trunk, so stable becomes the trunk. You'll have to merge from it periodically to get the latest changes.
hmmm - we've been using "trunk" as its used in the current SVN load which contains the code form the CVS HEAD. This has been distinguished from "stable" which I believe that people have used to refer to what has been called RC_1_34. But basically you're correct. In a complete application of the proposed practices there is no place for the current concept of "trunk" or HEAD with all the experimental code. In practice it will be all the code planed for the next "large - yearly" release. Its basically a developement branch with a slow merge frequency
For such a development model, svk is probably a much better fit than raw svn.
LOL - I'm sure there is better tool for everything somewhere. The point is, that improving the tool is pointless if we're not exploiting it in an effective manner. The current SVN (even CVS) is plenty good enough for what we need. Robert Ramey