This motion has been mentioned a few times but I think this is the first time it has its own topic.

I initially proposed that we should start a separate CVS repository for the TWikiAlpha tree.

The two comments so far have both suggested we use branches. Branches seem entirely reasonable to me, my prime concern is that we allow developers other than the core team to roll in their own changes, whilst retain the quality control and strategic input of the core team.

I hope this will give TWikiContributors (with the help of TWikiUnixInstaller) a chance to give early feedback on submitted patches whilst freeing the core team from the admin of applying a fix.

Options

Separate branches in the CVS repository

Separate CVS for alpha status code

I propose that we set up a separate CVS repository that we can use for active development and testing. It will replace the TWikiAlpha use of TWikiCVS; that will be confined to whatever the core team deems stable and appropriate.

This CVS repository would be the testing playground for competence TWiki hackers and developers. Newbies beware.

Argument by those who oppose

All those in favour

• MartinCleaver

All those against

• SvenDowideit
  • wtf? if you need to maintain a bug fixing repository and a developement one, you use CVS Branches... there is not so much change that we would ever need to split the repositories. I also think that the difference you are talking about is catered for by the releases, and the cvs repository is already for development (with tags at each release point)
  • Sven - could you adjust your statement if you think appropriate, thanks -- MartinCleaver - 03 Aug 2003

• AntonAylward - 03 Aug 2003
  • By the same logic that PeterThoeny presents for not having seperate Webs for each revision and for the 'next generation' etc, there is no need for CVS branches that correspond to ANY of the denied webs.
    My point here, I'm being contrarian if you haven't noticed, is that any justification ofr the one is an equally valid justifciation for the other.

All those who abstain

(It would be useful, but not mandatory if you could give a reason why you abstain)

• ...

-- MartinCleaver - 01 Aug 2003

Discussion

If it is the same developers who are expected to monitor and control both repositories we will be worse off -- those developers will have twice the work to do.

If it's different developers who control each repository, how will they be synchronised? (within those parts they hold common).

What about branching? As I understand it, a single cvs repository can have multiple code branches. What is the difference between this and a totally separate repository?

meta: I don't know yet whether I think we need a new repository or not. Consequently my thoughts don't at this point fit under any of the categories specified.

• • Matt - could you adjust your statement if you think appropriate, thanks -- MartinCleaver - 03 Aug 2003

-- MattWilkie - 03 Aug 2003

Verdict

Subsequent action taken