[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: M-x big-picture

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2001-01-31 22:25:15 CET

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:

> Alpha Checklist (?)
> The client-side of things is much further along than the server-side
> of things.

Yeah, I really didn't have much time lately. Release pressure ... JimB
also seems to have vanished, too, so not much has been done on the
filesystem in the last couple of weeks. The list in STACK is more or
less up to date, though.

I *hope* to put in several hours' work tomorrow night.

> * branching and merging commands

I have a big question mark about this itting somewhere around my
hypothalamus. I suspect I really don't understand our copy-is-branch
model, even with the proposed changes to create a "copy" node type in
the filesystem. I'm especially muddled about directory copies. I'd like
to clear things up. Here's what I think I understand:

a) All sorts of copies must be O(1)

b) A "svn copy" will do nothing but create a new "copy" node, which
contains the copy source's node revision and path.

c) Subsequent changes to a "copy" node will automagically create "file"
or "dir" successors (on the ame branch), according to the type of the
copy source.

O.K., that's all clear as long as the source is a file. If it's a
directory, we actually want to copy the whole tree. So it seems to me
that we have to create copies of its children when they change, but I've
seen discussions about creating branches instead.

How much of this did I get right?

Brane �ibej
    home:   <brane_at_xbc.nu>             http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
    work:   <branko.cibej_at_hermes.si>   http://www.hermes-softlab.com/
     ACM:   <brane_at_acm.org>            http://www.acm.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:20 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.