Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
>
>> I think part of it is the same problem discussed in Question 3 of
>> notes/schema-tradeoffs.txt: "Which tags contain version N of foo.c?" I
>> understand Subversion still can't efficiently answer that question,
>> though that will undoubtedly be improved sooner or later.
>>
>> | Perhaps if you could explain how you plan to do this with CVS and what
>> | operations you expect to be able to perform, we could explain how
>> to do
>> | the same thing with Subversion.
>>
>> CVS on the other hand can answer it pretty easily, so I guess if you
>> want to ask that question a lot, CVS does have its advantages.
>>
>> Does the question in schema-tradeoffs.txt sound a bit like your problem,
>> Nicolás?
>
>
> Yes, definitely. But there's more... imagine you have a deep hierarchy
> filled with document files (not code). And every such document might
> have lots of tags. How do I do that? Subversion tagging is designed
> for tagging whole trees, not for the simple per-file labeling you can
> do with CVS and ClearCase. CMM needs lots of tagging, and that tagging
> needs to be manageable. This creates a problem with the current
> subversion tagging model and its capabilities. Managing these tasks
> sounds like a pain with subversion.
Sorry, "CMM needs lots of tagging" is total /merda bovis/. Stating that
you need per-file and mixed-revision tags is even more so. CMM does not
even require you to use version control software.
--
Brane ÄŒibej <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 Fri Apr 2 23:04:14 2004