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

Re: Changesets vs Wet Blankets

From: Branko Čibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>
Date: 2003-04-15 02:08:35 CEST

In an incredibly long, mixed-topic post, Tom Lord wrote:

>* Separating V.A.P. from Merge History
> Sander's proposal talks about v.a.p. being the merge mechanism,
> but the proposal is really about merge history.
> These are separate concerns. There are many merge algorithms,
> v.a.p. being just one. Merge history is relevant to many of those
> algorithms.
> It's a useful touchstone to make sure that the proposed history
> mechanism is sufficient for v.a.p. -- but a mistake to think that
> v.a.p. is the only algorithm it should support.
> Rather than v.a.p. alone -- it would be useful to have a list of
> touchstones by which to judge history mechanisms. These should
> include alternative merge algorithms, sure -- but also uses of merge
> history in situations where repository access is not assured,

That part is served quite well with Sander's proposal, because
properties (and thus the merge history) are represented in the working copy.

> and
> generation and application of changesets in situations where
> repository access is not assured.

Both generation and application of changesets are possible. Even a merge
is possible without repository access, assuming you have both branches
checked out.

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
Received on Tue Apr 15 02:10:17 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.