lucenenet-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Bodewig <bode...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r1072121 - /incubator/lucene.net/branches/vs2010/
Date Sun, 20 Feb 2011 06:43:07 GMT
On 2011-02-19, Troy Howard wrote:

> Disclaimer: Troy's Personal Opinions (tm) which may be controversial,
> will be found below

> Regarding the idea of 'feature branches', I guess I should make it
> clear that I personally don't agree with this workflow in SVN.

> This is completely appropriate for Mercurial or Git, because they were
> designed for that. SVN however, was not, and branching becomes costly
> because it bloats the repo, causing updates or initial downloads to be
> much larger, and merging is confusing and difficult with SVN.

Stefan's personal opinion:  merging in svn isn't as bad as it gets
painted but a DVCS certainly makes it look easier.  Feature branches are
a good idea for

* experiments

* controversial changes so that you could show where you wanted to go
  for better discussion

* really big changes that take long to implement and many iterations to
  get right where you didn't want to disturb trunk

In general I tend to avoid them, though.

> Also, a big part of this is that many people have the opinion that
> 'trunk' should be stable. I think this philosophy is incorrect.
> Instead, stable revisions should be tagged, and trunk should be viewed
> as unstable, possibly not building or functioning correctly. Commits
> should occur frequently, and be isolated to a very small scope per
> commit.

+1 (except that I prefer trunk to build all the time).

Stefan

Mime
View raw message