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

Re: fs dump/restore proposal

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2002-04-24 17:26:37 CEST

"Bill Tutt" <rassilon@lyra.org> writes:

> Whatever our future branch management schema is, obliterating the copy
> data will prevent you from inferring what the set of branches should be.
> Besides, revision properties aren't nearly enough to specify branch
> behavior, or indeed being able to query them efficiently.

Bill and Branko,

Hold on a sec, guys. Here's my fundamental problem with combining
predecessor-history with copy-history: they're different things.
There's definitely a difference between *changing* a file and
*copying* a file. In one case, you create a successor, in another
case, you have a copy with history. These are distinct events, and I
don't see why we should toss this distinction.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 24 17:29:56 2002

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.