[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: Zack Weinberg <zack_at_codesourcery.com>
Date: 2002-08-08 20:48:17 CEST

On Thu, Aug 08, 2002 at 01:28:02PM +0100, Stephen C. Tweedie 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.

It was my understanding that the multiple cloned trees technique was
not as convenient for some tasks as LODs were supposed to be. Larry
always described it as a kludge until LODs worked. My information may
be out of date - I last paid serious attention to BK development in


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Aug 8 20:48:58 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.