[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: <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2002-04-24 18:25:23 CEST

brane@xbc.nu writes:

> I'm saying that, as we use copies now, there *is* no distinction.
> The only discernible difference in the current implementation is
> that, when you modify a file, its successor is a new version of
> the same node; when you copy it, it's a new node. But that's an
> implementation detail. We do it that way because that makes it
> easier for us at the *next* change made to the copy, or the
> directory it contains.

No, according to the original design philosophy, this is *not* an
implementation detail. It accurately reflects the theoretical
design. Read on.

> Forget about svn commands for a moment and imagine a node's history:
> 1 -- 2 +- 3 -- 5 -- 7 -+ 8 -- 9
> \ /
> +- 4 -- 6 -+
> It forks and it joins, but it's still the same node. Branching
> should only affect a single node's history, not create new nodes.
> That's what copying is for.

See, there's the difference. I don't think Subversion was ever
designed with the idea of allowing node history to "join". Historical
forking, yes, but no joining. I gather from your basic imagination of
a node's history that this is something you think we *should* support,

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 24 18:29:35 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.