> I think this is good but it may be hard to see the big picture. Perhaps a
> diagram of the various branches and sites would help (but that could be done
> later.)
True, a nice diagram would improve this greatly. We'll see if or when I get a chance to draw it.
> +So, we will have three branches stored on two servers:
> +trunk-master and trunk-texas at the Texas site and trunk-australia at the
> +Darwin site.
>
> I think generally it would cause confusion to have more than one thing called
> 'trunk', so therefore just one really called 'trunk' and then one integration
> branch per site.
Changed in the branch.
> Even beyond that, it probably makes sense to have an integration branch per
> logical team not per location, or at least to name them that way if the teams
> do correspond to the locations.
> I think this is good but it may be hard to see the big picture. Perhaps a
> diagram of the various branches and sites would help (but that could be done
> later.)
True, a nice diagram would improve this greatly. We'll see if or when I get a chance to draw it.
> +So, we will have three branches stored on two servers:
> +trunk-master and trunk-texas at the Texas site and trunk-australia at the
> +Darwin site.
>
> I think generally it would cause confusion to have more than one thing called
> 'trunk', so therefore just one really called 'trunk' and then one integration
> branch per site.
Changed in the branch.
> Even beyond that, it probably makes sense to have an integration branch per
> logical team not per location, or at least to name them that way if the teams
> do correspond to the locations.
Clarified in the branch.