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

Why are branches real directories?!?!?!

From: Jean-Luc Wasmer <jl.subversion_at_wasmer.ca>
Date: 2003-04-02 05:16:52 CEST


I just started playing with svn. I like most ideas that were introduced.
There is only one thing that I don't get.
If I overcome this, then I'm done with CVS. Please, help me.

Why isn't the branch concept fully implemented?

IMHO, copying to a new directory a part of the repository to create a branch
is BAD (even if it's cheap). It reminds me one time I _had_ to use VSS in a

The svn guide says:
"Subversion's branches exist a normal filesystem directories in the
repository, not in some extra dimension."
But isn't the extra dimension the coolest thing about a version control
Having the same file system tree when switching between revisions or
branches avoids changing paths in make files, configuration files, etc...
SVN might as well create a new filename for every revision of a file
(filename-r1, filename-r2, etc...).
It doesn't. So the history of a file is an extra dimension to a regular file
Why would this be a problem with branches?

Also (not a big deal, but still), the names of the branches may interfere
with future directories.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Apr 2 05:16:26 2003

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.