Understood. But in this case I would argue that the tagging feature
set is incomplete, because if you follow this logic, it would argue
for a system that used tags as the primary tracking tool instead of
rev#. However, there are still rather too many places in the
"approved" svn workflows where logs are examined to extract revnums,
which are then used in subsequent commands. (See, for example, the
discussions on branching in the svn book).
--Tim
On Nov 17, 2006, at 4:41 PM, Gerco Ballintijn wrote:
>
> There is a significant (conceptual) difference of "tagging" state (as
> currently done in Subversion) and "tagging" revision numbers (as in
> the proposed labeling scheme, if I understand correctly). With state
> I obviously mean the contents of files and directories. Since version
> control systems (like, for instance, CVS) frequently hide this
> distinction, there is a lot of confusion about what tagging actually
> does, can do, or is supposed to do. Also among the zealous, recently
> converted Subversion enthusiasts, who promptly ignore this distinction
> and proudly claim that "Subversion tagging can do everything".
> :-/ or :-) ?
>
>
> With regards,
> Gerco Ballintijn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Nov 18 05:18:03 2006