Re: fs dump/restore proposal

"Bill Tutt" <billtut@microsoft.com> writes:
> > I don't agree. Branches are not a "timeless concept of the
> filesystem".
>
> Just a finicky point. Branches are very time driven. No part of the
> system should be timeless. (i.e. not directly tied to a repository
> version number)
> Copy information certainly is.

I think "timeless" here meant "inherent in the semantics we've
promised from our filesystem, regardless of backend implementation",
i.e., the opposite of "ephemeral".

It wasn't related to the fact that repository version numbers are an
increasing sequence flowing forward in time.

(Unless, of course, by "tied to a repository version number" you were
referring to *release* numbers, not revision numbers... Oh, the
possibilities for misinterpretation are indeed legion :-) ).

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 24 19:29:34 2002