Re: Project source structure

>From: Jean Morissette <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [SEDA-users] Project source structure
>Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 23:58:14 -0500
>Quartz wrote:
>>Please tag the CVS clearly and/or branch.
>>As for users, they will want a clear version tracking.
> >
>>(version of july 2002 was tagged. You might want to branch from there, not 
>>the head. Otherwise,
>>tag the current head, and branch your stuff).
>
>I think that we should continue the development from the head and not 
>create a branch because:
>1) the original version is already tagged seda-release-20020712;
>2) I think that the head is for regular enhancements and the branch is for 
>bug fixes and minor enhancements on the last release.
>
>We want to enhance seda, not write bug fixes.  Thus, it seems better to 
>continue in the main trunk (head).  Do you agree with this?
>
>I'm not an expert in CVS best practices, so I could be wrong.

I agree that development should continue on the head, but people need a 
snapshot of the code prior to these changes. Therefore I suggest that the 
current head is branched. The new branch would be for bugfixes to the 
current codebase and the head would be for new development.
On the other hand, with so many changes going on and what with the CVS 
system's untidy way with deleted or moved files and especially with 
directories, I would be tempted to start a new project with a clean CVS 
repository.

Tom




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by: InterSystems CACHE
FREE OODBMS DOWNLOAD - A multidimensional database that combines
robust object and relational technologies, making it a perfect match
for Java, C++,COM, XML, ODBC and JDBC. www.intersystems.com/match8