From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-07-16 06:00:18
"Johannes Brunen" <jbrunen_at_[hidden]> writes:
> At our company we use a slightly different approach. We have two development
> streams, which we call 'Master' and 'Release'. At some time, when we are
> releasing a version from our main development branch ('Master'), we just make
> a copy of the current 'Master' state and check it into a different source
> control database ('Release').
> Bug fixes will be added into the 'Master' and into the 'Release'
> branch. However, new functionality and interface changes are only
> added into the 'Master'.
Presumably that's exactly what we're doing with branches.
> Of course it is a little bit more work to add the bug fixes into two
> seperate RCS.
So why not simply branch instead? It's better than making a whole
> But this way, we are able to bring bug fix releases to
> our clients whenever there is a demand for it. Additionally, it then
> is possible to make complete structural changes to the 'Master'
> without concernig about the 'Release'.
There's no reason to use a separate CVS for this. I guess if you're
using RCS you might not be able to do it; I don't recall whether it
supports branching directly.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk