Thanks for the answers.
> It's arbitrary. Whoever gets there first gets 1.3. Since we don't
> distinguish between copies and references (since the distinction is
> meaningless in the absence of hard links), it doesn't matter.
So there's really no distinction between descendents of a
node-revision, even though one of them looks primary and the rest look
secondary. Okay. (I can't come up with any reasonable numbering
system which avoids this artificial distinction, so I guess we just
live with that foible.)
> svn log takes a revision and filename, and finds a node number.
> Then it walks backward from that node number. Walking backward from
> a node ID is unambiguous.
That's an interesting departure from CVS, whose log command shows
information about branches, as well as information about the future of
the file you're looking at. But I'm certainly willing to try it out
and see how many people complain.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:16 2006