|
I've used SVN for years and have come to appreciate it. Hell, everyone would if they had to use StarTeam before that. But my question isn't so much about what is being used, but when to branch. Right now we're debating to either: A) Trunk is always for continuous development. Branch release candidate while working on new version in Trunk; merge fixes on Branch back into the Trunk. Use a Tag for the actual release (may be overkill to use a Tag, but that's it in theory). B) Branch current revision, make it release-worthy then merge into Trunk, keeping Trunk clear of any "sandbox" or new development. So even if a huge refactor or new feature needs its own branch, it possibly could end up be a branch of a branch (in theory). We're a small team ~ 10 people - most are new to SVN and source control in general. My old company we had roughly the same and used option A and rarely had a problem. Yes, the build broke from time-to-time, but I would say it was solid 95% of the time and we never had any major problems. We also had 4 major products off of one code base. I'm not looking for "use this because it's better", but has anyone hit any pitfalls with option B. I know how option A works and have not had any major issues with it in my 4 years using it that method. There ahve been issues or problems with merging here and there, but no show stoppers. I prefer A, though if it's selected way of doing this B isn't all too bad, if a bit draconian. I've had a lot of wins in selecting technology for this project, so I'm willing to compromise if other developers (who have had experience with source control) prefer something else. They'll still be running to me for help.
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2009 01:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 12:25 |
|