On 2009-08-15 at 14:39:49 [+0200], Ryan Leavengood <leavengood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 8:00 AM, Oliver Tappe<zooey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > After you have created the branch, you either switch your local trunk > > sandbox > > to the branch or make a separate checkout, depending whether or not you like > > to be able to build the trunk, too. I personally always make a separate > > checkout. > > Given how long the process can take to checkout all our code (at least > for those of us outside Europe), I might recommend copying the already > existing trunk checkout to a new directory on your local machine and > then doing svn switch if you want to keep the trunk version around. Right. > Also for those wondering the branch is fairly efficient on the server > side since any unmodified code just points to the trunk version. > > Also on a related note, is it acceptable or a good practice to only > branch certain subdirectories? For example if one just wanted to > refactor a small part of the code? AFAIK it will work in principle > (after all trunk is just a directory to svn), I was just curious what > others think of it. I have been burnt by that line of thought recently, when I was pretty sure that I only needed to change a single configuration file for gcc. In a minimalistic approach, I branched just that one file. Of course, a couple of days later it occured to me that it would be better to adjust other files, too, requiring a second branch ... So, I would leave it to subversion to optimize the branches and always do a full branch on trunk. If you switch your trunk, (or copy & switch, as you suggested above), it will be nearly as swift as having a small branch, but much more flexible. cheers, Oliver