cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>brane@xbc.nu writes:
>
>>I'm saying that, as we use copies now, there *is* no distinction.
>>The only discernible difference in the current implementation is
>>that, when you modify a file, its successor is a new version of
>>the same node; when you copy it, it's a new node. But that's an
>>implementation detail. We do it that way because that makes it
>>easier for us at the *next* change made to the copy, or the
>>directory it contains.
>>
>
>No, according to the original design philosophy, this is *not* an
>implementation detail. It accurately reflects the theoretical
>design. Read on.
>
>>Forget about svn commands for a moment and imagine a node's history:
>>
>> 1 -- 2 +- 3 -- 5 -- 7 -+ 8 -- 9
>> \ /
>> +- 4 -- 6 -+
>>
>>It forks and it joins, but it's still the same node. Branching
>>should only affect a single node's history, not create new nodes.
>>That's what copying is for.
>>
>
>See, there's the difference. I don't think Subversion was ever
>designed with the idea of allowing node history to "join". Historical
>forking, yes, but no joining. I gather from your basic imagination of
>a node's history that this is something you think we *should* support,
>though?
>
Thank you! That's exaclty what I meant. I know we don't support this in
the filesystem now. What I'm saying is that we should support it in the
dump format, so that we *can* support it in the filesystem someday.
(IIRC, there was at least one request for such a feature, coming from
the GNU project.)
--
Brane Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 24 20:19:38 2002