|
|
| Re: SVN provider assumptions...? [message #642842 is a reply to message #642814] |
Thu, 02 December 2010 21:31   |
|
On 2010-12-02 20:13, Eric Gwin wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Our project currently uses an Ant/Shell centric build system for automation. I'm investigating Buckminster as a
> replacement to clean up the provisioning front-end. Our project is in SVN, but am unclear about the some of the
> assumptions regarding the SVN hierarchy.
>
> Our layout uses trunk/branches/tags, but branches/tags assumes "trunk" as well:
> \trunk
> \branches\2.0\trunk
> \branches\2.1\trunk
> \tags\2.0.1-M6\trunk
> \tags\2.0.2-M1\trunk
>
> Does this match the assumed scheme, or will I need to rearrange our structure to use the default SVN plugin?
> Thanks,
> -Eric
I think the normal way of thinking about it is that you're either on a branch, a tag, or on trunk. I've never
encountered the scheme you're using and I'm afraid it's not supported.
- thomas
|
|
|
|
| Re: SVN provider assumptions...? [message #642868 is a reply to message #642847] |
Fri, 03 December 2010 06:26 |
|
On 2010-12-02 23:35, Eric Gwin wrote:
> The sense I get is this isn't the usual practice for an eclipse project.
> I say this because I can find no 'majic' in the projects I've reviewed
> to point buckminster to <root>/branches/2.0/... for a 2.0.1 versioned
> subcomponent. Is this where the use of a "matcher" would need to be used
> for a svn repository URL? or is there some other mechanism?
>
Buckminster will always want the URL that contains the 'trunk' keyword.
It then assumes that 'branches' and 'tags' will live adjacent to
'trunk'. What branch or tag (or simply trunk) that is actually used is
controlled by the CQUERY "Branch or Tag" path.
Branches are denoted verbatim, i.e. "2.0.x" whereas tags are denoted
with an initial slash, i.e. "/2.0.1".
So if you have a url like xyz/trunk/something and specify a branch tag
path like /2.0.1 then Buckminster will use xyz/tags/2.0.1/something.
I.e. it replaces the keyword 'trunk' for tags/2.0.1.
If you have a group where you have branches and tags beneath it (like
2.0 in your example), then you can use that too. You would have a
structure like:
xyz/2.0/branches
/2.0.x
xyz/2.0/tags
/2.0.1
/2.0.0
xyz/2.0/trunk
and you pass xyz/2.0/trunk to Buckminster. Doing it that way,
Buckminster wouldn't care about "2.0" and not actually consider it part
of the trunk/branch/tag layout.
A common way of doing this though, would be to no have the "2.0" group
at all and instead do:
xyz/branches/
2.0.x (this is where the next maintenance release for 2.0 is developed)
2.1.x (this is where the next maintenance release for 2.1 is developed)
3.0.x (this is where the next maintenance release for 3.0 is developed)
...
xyz/tags/
2.0.0
2.0.1
2.0.2
2.0.3
2.1.0
2.1.1
2.1.2
3.0.0
3.0.1
...
trunk/
- thomas
|
|
|
|
Powered by
FUDForum. Page generated in 0.03655 seconds
] 
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
