Re: M-x big-picture

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 "1.2.3.4" should create a new node with "2.1.1.1" 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