#1025 closed enhancement (duplicate)
Multiple projects: add option for Browse Source to link to top of project in repository
Reported by: | Owned by: | Jonas Borgström | |
---|---|---|---|
Priority: | normal | Milestone: | |
Component: | general | Version: | 0.8 |
Severity: | normal | Keywords: | project browse source |
Cc: | Branch: | ||
Release Notes: | |||
API Changes: | |||
Internal Changes: |
Description (last modified by )
Where multiple projects are stored in the svn repository:
/projecta
/projectb
/projectc
it would be nice if Browse Source could link directly to the top of each within the repository, rather than always linking to the top level.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I couldn't find how to configure it to do this.
Attachments (0)
Change History (4)
comment:1 by , 20 years ago
Resolution: | → duplicate |
---|---|
Status: | new → closed |
comment:2 by , 20 years ago
I'm not so concerned with multiple repositories, but multiple source trees within the one repository. We are already using multiple trac databases, but sharing a single svn repository (as we don't want the overhead of one repository per project). This works fine, except for the minor inconvenience I'm describing below.
My suggestion is merely that instead of the Browse source linking from
http://trac/projects/ProjectA/
to
http://trac/projects/ProjectA/Browser
and then always having to click on ProjectA to get to
http://trac/projects/ProjectA/Browser/ProjectA
to get to where I wanted to be, that it be possible to link there directly.
Cheers.
comment:3 by , 20 years ago
Description: | modified (diff) |
---|
If I understand you correctly this is the same as #586, right?
comment:4 by , 20 years ago
That sounds more like it, yes.
(We are actually evaluating trac on a pilot project (consisting of 5 subprojects) and I'm thinking ahead to how we might roll it out to the rest of R&D.)
We may actually go the multi-repository route after all, but not divide each into subprojects. But that's what pilot projects are for, to discover the right granularity for your purposes.
many thanks.
Duplicate of #130.