[sldev] A brief history lesson on our branches (Re:http-texture branch)

[Rob Lanphier]

Digging back through some of the email I didn't get to because of my
vacation....

On 04/25/2009 07:00 AM, Boroondas Gupte wrote:
> Rob Lanphier schrieb:
>   
>> Some enterprising soul may want to update this page to reflect the new
>> world order, since it's been a while since its seen an update:
>> https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Source_branches
>>     
> OK, I've done that:
> https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Source_branches#Current_repository_structure
> Please correct any misconceptions I might have included. (Bonus points
> if someone cleans up the old stuff still there)
>   

Thanks!
> What is still missing but would be nice to have documented: Is there any
> rule about what branches will go directly to
> linden/branches/<branchname> (e.g.
> http://svn.secondlife.com/svn/linden/branches/render-pipeline/) and what
> to linden/braches/<year>/<branchname> (e.g.
> http://svn.secondlife.com/svn/linden/branches/2009/http-texture/)?
>   


Persistent branches that are expected to have development effort
indefinitely go in the top level, as well as branches corresponding to
released versions of the code. Branches that we know aren't going to be
under active development go in the year-based directory. Some branches
that we expect to live on indefinitely we may still put in a year-based
directory, because until it's been around a couple years, we can't know
for sure it's going to remain relevant.

The concept was borrowed from here: http://www.w3.org/Provider/Style/URI

While the source code is not really a website, it's a great
anti-crufting measure to stuff things into year based directories from
the get-go. Since there are going to be cases where people deep link to
svn.secondlife.com in emails and on websites, it's still kinda rude to
move things around too much.

Rob