Re: fs dump/restore proposal

Karl Fogel wrote:

>"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".
>
Yea. I was quoting the Ben's proposal. :-)

>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 :-) ).
>
Unfortunately ...

-- 
Brane Čibej   <brane_at_xbc.nu>   http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org