Re: Subversion history: Why was/is tagging/branching implemented as copy?

C. Michael Pilato wrote:

>Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>
>>[moving to the dev list, as it more properly belongs there]
>>
>>kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>We tried to think of an important difference between tags/branches and
>>>copies, and couldn't, so we just decided to implement them as copies
>>>and make it user-visible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, I _have_ thought of an important (to me, that is) difference
>>between branches and copies, and I brought it up a few times, but it can
>>wait until post-1.0. A difference that would incidentally make history
>>traversing much easier, especially in non-BDB backends -- but it would
>>mean a change in the database schema. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Speak now -- you may just get your chance to change the schema one
>last time before 1.0...
>
>
Oh, no. For one thing, I don't have it entirely thought out myself. For
another, the schema change will probably not be minor (it should address
some inherent performance problems), so it's more likeli in svn-2.0
rather than svn-1.1.

/me fidgets, resisting the temptation

-- 
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