Currently we have a project with a standard subversion repository layout of:


However, as we're moving down the road of OSGi and a modular project, we've ended up with:

./trunk/bundle/moduleb ./tags/bundle/main-1.0.0

The 'build' is still quite monolithic in that it builds all modules in sequence, though I'm starting to wonder if we should refactor the build/repository to something more like:


In this pattern I would imagine each module building itself, and storing its binary in a repository (maven, ivy, or another path of the subversion repository itself).

Are there guidelines or 'best-practices' over project layouts once one goes modular?

+3  A: 
Anders Sandvig
+5  A: 

The Subversion book contains two sections on this:

A blog entry on the subject: "Subversion Repository Layout"

The short answer, though: while your mileage will vary (every situation is individual), your /bundle/<project>/(trunk|tags|branches) scheme is rather common and will likely work well for you.

Sören Kuklau

I've answered a similar question in a StackOverflow Version Control Structure question. It actually fits even better here since we do heavy OSGi development and have lots of bundles. I must echo Anders Sandvig comments: keep trunk/tags/branches on the root level since you will only branch a limited set of modules. It also does not interfere with modules building individually.

I won't copy the answer I made before but it is entirely relevant to this question.

Boris Terzic
+1  A: 

Just my two cents...

I just want to emphasize the comment in the SVN documentation (already quoted in another answer, same thread) http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.4/svn.reposadmin.planning.html#svn.reposadmin.projects.chooselayout

The excerpt references the following structure : / trunk/ calc/ calendar/ spreadsheet/ … tags/ calc/ calendar/ spreadsheet/ … branches/ calc/ calendar/ spreadsheet/

"There's nothing particularly incorrect about such a layout, but it may or may not seem as intuitive for your users. Especially in large, multi-project situations with many users, those users may tend to be familiar with only one or two of the projects in the repository. But the projects-as-branch-siblings tends to de-emphasize project individuality and focus on the entire set of projects as a single entity. That's a social issue though. We like our originally suggested arrangement for purely practical reasons—it's easier to ask about (or modify, or migrate elsewhere) the entire history of a single project when there's a single repository path that holds the entire history—past, present, tagged, and branched—for that project and that project alone."

For my own, I tend to agree quite strongly with this and prefer the following layout: / utils/ calc/ trunk/ tags/ branches/ calendar/ trunk/ tags/ branches/ … office/ spreadsheet/ trunk/ tags/ branches/

The reason are simply that its impractical to tag a complete project set when one would want to tag only a specific subset.

Let's use an example: If project-1 depends on moduleA v1.1 and moduleB v2.3, I don't want newer moduleA v2.x to appear in the tags. In fact, when coming back some days/weeks/months later to this tagged release, I would be forced to open the bundle descriptor in the tagged version of project-1 to read the version of moduleA actually required.

Moreover, if I have to make a specific backup of this release's sources onto a CD, I just want to export this tag without downloading hundreds of megabytes of unrelated stuff.

It was just my two cents.

Michel Nolard