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

RE: Re: SVN is not truly distributed?

From: Bill Tutt <rassilon_at_lyra.org>
Date: 2002-08-08 17:03:14 CEST

> From: Stephen C. Tweedie [mailto:sct@redhat.com]
> Hi,
> On Wed, Aug 07, 2002 at 03:12:03PM -0700, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> > BitKeeper still doesn't support true branches ("lines of
> 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.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure what you think true branches are then.
Copies in Subversion function exactly like branches. However, Subversion
isn't a multi-dimensional version space like ClearCase. It's a flat,
filesystem like version space. A branch's name is the entire repository
path to the destination of the copy. Branch nesting is completely
supported. In fact, branching branches with sub-branches in O(1) time is
(after the appropriate bug is fixed) completely supported. All branch
related operations are O(1) in fact. The fact that the user interface
calls it a copy is just a user interface decision, and has little
relevance to what actually happens in the data model. You can also
(using the data model, and not existing APIs unfortunately) iterate over
all branches that contain a specific file in preparation for determining
a possible merge source.

Heck, we even support easily converting your working copy from one
branch to the other using "svn switch".


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 8 17:03:56 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.