This is certainly an interesting argument about levels of abstraction. :-)
Subversions is a versioned file system.
* It is lower level than CVS (which has branches and tags).
* It is lower level than perforce (which has branches and tags).
* It is lower level than ClearCase (which has branches and tages).
* It is lower level than Visual SourceSafe (which has branches and tags).
I'm not sure the Subversion devs would agree with that, however much they've
convinced themselves that tags and branches are not cornerstones of proper
version control but simply Wrong Thinking(tm).
Someone should enlighten all those poor users of other systems that they
needn't be bound by silly inflexible branches and tags. They can have much
more "flexibility" by simply copying directories around. I don't know why
no one has thought of it before! :-)
-Brian
----- Original Message -----
> Generally, if your needs can be satisfied solely by adding more
> functionality on top of subversion (without actually changing subversion
> itself), then you have not thereby necessarily discovered a design flaw in
> Subversion, don't you agree?
> Instead, you have discovered a way to use svn plus some extra
> functionality to address problems that svn (by design) does not currently
> attempt (and should never attempt IMO) to address.
>
> Regards,
>
> --m@
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Aug 1 05:15:42 2005