Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2007-12-03 08:53:30 +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
>
>> * Divorce branches from copies. Branch, tag and copy are all
>> conceptually different. Our simple "branch == copy" paradigm is
>>
> [...]
>
> Do you mean that it will no longer be possible to do a merge on a
> copy? For instance, I like to be able to do the following in the
> working copy containing my own files (the main part of my home
> directory, if you want):
>
> svn cp script script.test
>
> then do changes on script and experimental changes on script.test,
> and later merge the experimental changes to script. And it is quite
> useful to have script and script.test available at the same time:
> script must always be available for normal use, and script.test for
> testing.
>
> IMHO, branches should be regarded as a particular form of copies
> (i.e. with additional restrictions to allow more features).
>
IMNSHO, we should first support the mainstream CM paradigm, then worry
about edge cases such as yours. Having the branch and directory
namespaces conflated is sexy for small projects but horror on
moderate-sized ones. And on large projects, you end up inventing branch
namespace hierarchy where the tool doesn't support it.
What happens after that ... is too early to guess.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 5 00:42:08 2007