My advice as a CM guy is you do NOT want to use branches or branching to solve this problem. If you have to manage/support multiple "configurations" of functionality for multiple markets/customers, branching is just about the worst way to do it (and this is coming from someone who is an advocate of branching, when done the right way for the right reasons).
The issue is likely to be one of "Binding Time". In your case, you would prefer the binding-time to be either at build-time (such as conditional compilation or linking), or release-engineering time (packaging up the "right" sets of files, including configuration files, for distributing to a customer), install/upgrade-time, or run-time.
One of the prefered ways to do this is with Business-Rules; particularly when it comes to decisions of "variable" policies and/or functionality. With GUI's depending on the kind of variation, you might resort to either conditional compilation or else simply creating separate source-files (instead of branching the same file).
There were some substantial discussions on this topic on CMCrossroads forums that yielded many practical insights and further resources. I recommend them:
I can say I tried out different strategies in earlier projects already. But not with such a big project. And none of the ways I took made me happy. It always ended up in a kind of hell: Configuration hell, branching hell, inheritance hell.Yes - and some of those "circles" of h*ll are far worse than others when you look at the overall costs and effort. The bottom-line is that if you have to support multiple "variants" rather than a single evolving "line", you are adding complexity, and there is no way you are going to be able to sweep it under the rug or make it go away.
So it all comes down to which techniques and strategies in which "dimensions" of the project/product will prove most effective at minimizing and managing dependencies, effort and impact by most effectively allowing you to leverage proven principles such as encapsulation, cohesion, modularity, abstraction, etc. in the most efficient ways.
Think about what aspects or dimensions of your project/product are required to be "variable" in order for you to support multiple variants. Do your "variants" need to differ ...
- in functional/behavioral dimensions
- along organizational boundaries
- along multiple platforms/environments
- along temporal (evolution) dimensions
- along project dimensions
For example, if you need to allow variability primarily along functional and environmental "dimensions", then which of those "dimensions" does version branching operate within? Version branching operates primarily within the space of evolution/time (concurrent, parallel, and distributed development).
So temporally-based techniques are not going to be best suited to handling variation in the behavioral or environmental dimensions, as the isolation/insulation they provide does not most effectively minimize, localize or encapsulate the kinds of dependencies in the non-time-based aspects of the system.
Differences in policy and/or mechanism are typically best handled using a business-rules approach to deliver a single codebase with multiple possible configurations of rules and rule-settings.
Differences in platforms are best handled by well known design and architecture patterns like Wrapper-Facade, and numerous patterns from the Gang-of-Four design patterns book.
Differences in behavior may be best handled by functional/feature selection and deselection "design patterns" like Configurator, to enable or disable features and/or services at post-development binding-times.
Inheritance may be useful in some cases, if the type of configuration needed really does fit a single hierarchical model of increasing specialization. In other cases, an aspect-oriented approach might be better.
Also think about the following in terms of what needs to "vary" and what needs to stay the same:
- Interface -vs- Implementation -vs- Integration
- Container -vs- Content -vs- Context
You might end up using a combination of strategies depending on the different aspects of variation you require and the "dimension" in which each one operates.