search

jiffyrune / gpuocelot

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/gpuocelot
0 stars 0 forks source link

Fix the SVN repository directory layout #54

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
What steps will reproduce the problem?
1. Browse the SVN repository at 
http://code.google.com/p/gpuocelot/source/browse/
2. Look at the directory structure for branches / tags.

What is the expected output? What do you see instead?

I'd expect to see one of the typical SVN repository structures, either

   calc/
      trunk/
      tags/
      branches/
   calendar/
      trunk/
      tags/
      branches/
   spreadsheet/
      trunk/
      tags/
      branches/

or

   trunk/
      calc/
      calendar/
      spreadsheet/
      …
   tags/
      calc/
      calendar/
      spreadsheet/
      …
   branches/
      calc/
      calendar/
      spreadsheet/

see http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.reposadmin.planning.html

IMHO, the following should be done:

1) Delete the empty svn/branch
2) Move svn/trunk/branches to svn/branches
3) Move svn/trunk/tags/* to /svn/tags/*
4) Delete svn/trunk/tags

Fixing this would also simplify mirroring gpuocelot e.g. in Git.

What version of the product are you using? On what operating system?

N/A

Original issue reported on code.google.com by sschuberth on 24 Jun 2011 at 1:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Thanks for the suggestion.  

This one has been with us since revision 1 when we imported ocelot from another 
repository.  We haven't changed it until now mainly because no one has 
complained.  

I'll get on it.

Original comment by SolusStu...@gmail.com on 7 Jul 2011 at 5:46

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I made the suggest change.  Is this what you were expecting?

Original comment by SolusStu...@gmail.com on 25 Jul 2011 at 9:35

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Yes, thanks a lot.

Original comment by sschuberth on 26 Jul 2011 at 7:41

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Sorry, I initially overlooked this, but "branch" should actually be called 
"branches".

Original comment by sschuberth on 28 Jul 2011 at 1:06