[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: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_newton.collab.net>
Date: 2001-01-31 23:27:14 CET

Branko =?ISO-8859-2?Q?=C8ibej?= <brane@xbc.nu> writes:

> (I would even argue that copying a revision that's not on the main
> branch should create a copy on the same branch level; i.e., copying node
> revision "" should create a new node with "" as its only
> revision. "branch" and "merge" commands should be the only way to create
> new branches on a node.)

I think I'm personally getting confused about the term "branch". We
talk about the 3rd number on a node-revision being a "branch" in the
node's personal history. But we also have the idea of "branches" in
general project development -- and these are represented by cheap-copy
subdirs in the filesystem.

Is there a relationship between these two concepts? Somebody please
de-confuse me!

> It would be quite easy to do lazy directory tree copies. Like this:
> a) "svn copy" of a directory creates a new "copy" node, no more.
> b) The first change on the copy creates a "dir"-type successor, *and*
> copies of all of it's children.

Yeah, I had something exactly like this mind also. =)
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.