Rene Rivera wrote:
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
What the wiki doesn't mention is that we have both 'sandbox-branches', and 'sandbox-tags'. Seems reasonable to keep that arrangement. I'm not sure I agree. If sandbox projects are managed individually, why not letting them care for their own branching arrangements (i.e. local file layout) ?
Because then when one checks out the boost/sandbox one will also get a bunch of "copies" of all the projects. AFAIK the arrangement was designed such that one can check out boost/sandbox or boost/stable or boost/devel, and have a simple tree. I know this isn't the "recommended" svn layout but personally (even though I didn't come up with it) it seems more _humane_ than the recommended.
Why would anybody check out the whole sandbox ? I'd expect people to check out individual projects. And, if many people do want a single sandbox (for example defined as the set of all sandbox trunks), one can easily set up such a metaproject using svn:externals. (see, another good use case for it ! ;-) ) Regards, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...