Vincent Starre wrote:
> Jim Blandy wrote:
>
>> Nobody disagrees that symbolic revision names would be easy to
>> implement. That's not why we avoided them. We avoided them because
>> we thought we had a simpler way to do a better job.
>>
>> What are you trying to do with Subversion at the moment that
>> Subversion's tags handle poorly, but that symbolic names for revisions
>> would do well?
>>
>>
>
> The only example I've heard is that of "I want to move a couple of files
> back to the state of the tag"
> Currently this is done with:
> svn merge -rBASE /path/to/origin/of/wc /path/to/tag/desired ./filename
Use "svn switch" instead of "svn merge".
Cheers,
Folker
>
> This has the downsides of:
> - tending to be a lot to type
> - unlike an update, you are not given an error when you try to commit
> without "un-merging"
> - there is no "memory" of the merge so that it can be un-done easily (an
> update would let you just say "update" with no
> revision specified to get back the latest- though the latest still
> probably isnt what is wanted, what you really want is what
> -rBASE was before the last update- an alias which does not currently
> exist.. so either way would probably have a problem.
> With the current implementation, you need to manually reverse the merge)
>
> Of course, the other example of "I want to examine a tag, but don't want
> to accidentally commit to it" can be easily fixed with hook scripts.
>
> As an aside, I use tags primarily for auditing, and do most backtracking
> through log-mining and svn blame, so I am _not_ the best-versed in this
> use case.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 20 18:43:32 2006