[fdo-internals] PSC: Interesting Conundrum

[Robert Fortin]

All in favor of option 1. Providers are always targeting a specific
version of FDO so it make sence that they are generally branched with
FDO.  Splitting the reporitories has resulted in additional work when
creating branch plus issues around common component used across
providers.

RF

-----Original Message-----
From: fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:fdo-internals-bounces at lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Mateusz
Loskot
Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2007 2:07 PM
To: FDO Internals Mail List
Subject: Re: [fdo-internals] PSC: Interesting Conundrum

Robert Bray wrote:
> So we have a couple of choices:
> 
>    1. Merge the SVN repositories into one. This can be done without
>       losing any history, and from what I read it would be possible to
>       either have branches on a per provider basis (like we do now) or
a
>       single branch across all of FDO. That later is more work but
might
>       be cleaner long term if we take this approach.

I second this option.

Also, I'd suggest to consider if it would be reasonable to flatten the
directories layout:

trunk\fdocore
trunk\fdordbms
trunk\fdoshp
...

instead of keeping Providers deep in the structure, under:
trunk\fdocore\Providers\...
or
trunk\fdocore
trunk\Providers\...

Personally, I keep FDO stuff following the proposed structure and it
works for me better than checkouting provider into the fdocore tree, to
Providers directory.

Also, I can confirm branching will be as easy as it's now.
Simply, in SVN branches or tags can be created for any subtree of the
repo.

Cheers
--
Mateusz Loskot
http://mateusz.loskot.net
_______________________________________________
fdo-internals mailing list
fdo-internals at lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/fdo-internals