On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 17:52 -0700, Tim Hill wrote:
> 1. I don't really buy the "you can do it with tags, so who needs labels"
> argument.
The argument (at least, the one I made) is not that tags are good
enough, but that we want to be wary of having two substantially
different mechanisms for doing very similar things. Under the
revision-aliases proposal, if you want to mark a particular rev of a
tree, you can either use revision aliases ("labels") to get access via
-r, or you can use tags to get browsability through ra_dav, a historical
record of the operation in the same form as a commit (*), and
identification of the part of the tree the tag applies to. If you want
a combination of these advantages, you might be tempted to make *both* a
revision alias and a tag.
Yes, it's inconvenient to use tags for some use cases, and those use
cases would be simpler if we had revision aliases or some other
conception of labels. But I would be happier if we could come up with
an answer which didn't give us two radically different mechanisms, each
with a distinct subset of the operational properties people want from a
tagging-type operation.
(*) The more simplistic revision-alias proposals involve creating an
unversioned table of revision aliases, which would be similar in concept
to CVS's tags. I would be rather down on this approach. Branko's
proposal which uses revision properties could be made to have history if
we add revision property history (which we could do pretty easily), but
the historical record of a revision alias would still be in a very
different form than the repository's usual historical records, and that
could be rather inconvenient.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun May 29 03:35:15 2005