RE: Re: fs dump/restore proposal
From: Bill Tutt <rassilon_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2002-04-24 17:32:07 CEST
I agree, I don't think we can toss the distinction either.
Bill
---- Do you want a dangerous fugitive staying in your flat? No. Well, don't upset him and he'll be a nice fugitive staying in your flat. > -----Original Message----- > From: Ben Collins-Sussman [mailto:sussman@collab.net] > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 8:27 AM > To: Bill Tutt > Cc: brane@xbc.nu; SVN Dev List > Subject: Re: fs dump/restore proposal > > "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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.orgReceived on Wed Apr 24 17:33:16 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.