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

Re: SVN is not truly distributed?

From: Stephen C. Tweedie <sct_at_redhat.com>
Date: 2002-08-08 14:28:02 CEST


On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 03:12:03PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:

> BitKeeper still doesn't support true branches ("lines of development").

Subversion doesn't support true branches, either. It has a
sort-of-equivalent feature in the form of copies. bk does more or
less the same thing --- a branch is a clone, not a copy, and resides
outside the original development directory in the repository, just
like on subversion.

The "lines of development" feature being talked about in bitkeeper is
_not_ about branches. It's about tagging specific subsets of the
history lines in the merge tree of *one* bitkeeper repository.

> Branching in bk always
> This has been the number one missing feature for three years now.

Odd, I've got about a dozen local branches of the bitkeeper 2.4 kernel
tree, which I use to automate merging between various different
feature sets I've got locally (eg. uml, kdb, ext3 development trees,


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 8 15:17:10 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.