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

Re: Tags and branches are NOT the same

From: Vincent Starre <vstarre_at_comcast.net>
Date: 2006-03-20 20:33:56 CET

Jim Blandy wrote:

>On 3/20/06, Vincent Starre <vstarre@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>The only example I've heard is that of "I want to move a couple of files
>>back to the state of the tag"
>>Currently this is done with:
>>svn merge -rBASE /path/to/origin/of/wc /path/to/tag/desired ./filename
>>
>>This has the downsides of:
>> - tending to be a lot to type
>> - unlike an update, you are not given an error when you try to commit
>>without "un-merging"
>> - there is no "memory" of the merge so that it can be un-done easily
>>(an update would let you just say "update" with no
>> revision specified to get back the latest- though the latest still
>>probably isnt what is wanted, what you really want is what
>> -rBASE was before the last update- an alias which does not currently
>>exist.. so either way would probably have a problem.
>> With the current implementation, you need to manually reverse the merge)
>>
>>
>
>Subversion's model does require more typing, because there isn't a
>natural default for comparisons the way there is in CVS. We've talked
>about ways to address that, but the topic got dropped; I'd like to
>pick it up again some time.
>
>
I thought that's what this topic was about..

>As far as the other things are concerned, how does CVS handle that
>situation better? I'm not sure exactly which CVS commands you have in
>mind; I can't think of any that behave in the way you'd like.
>
>
Read a few messages up. This thread is not "CVS's way is better", this
is "limitations of the current system and how they might be improved".
There should probably be a blanket ban on even mentioning CVS in this
thread :)
Other replies to this message seem to say that the only example I've
ever heard of from those who don't like the way svn's tags work has been
worked out as of 1.3 (I don't have 1.3 and don't have access to 1.3, so
I can't confirm this, but I dont see any reason to not believe it)

So if indeed single-file switching now works (in which case: does this
mean I can now create a working copy which only has the files I want in
it? [eg: in windows, there are many .def files for dlls that need to be
checked out, they are not needed anywhere else] That could actually make
me break down and try to build APR everywhere), it may be that I can
once again claim to not have heard a single valid argument about what's
wrong with the current tag system. Other than, of course, the typing
thing, which I really don't care very much about.

I've mentioned previously(in other threads) that one way around the
typing problem might be to allow URLs to be specified in some way where
they would be "relative to the URL of the wc". For example:
svn switch ./+../../tags/foo
in a wc checked out from /path/to/origin would translate to:
svn switch /path/tags/foo

Though if indeed you can now switch a single file, that might get confusing.

Realy nonplussed about the whole topic at the moment. If individual
files can be switched now, I can't come up with any use-case anyone
could have to complain about.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 20 20:34:49 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.