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

Re: Reality check

From: Hyrum K. Wright <hyrum_wright_at_mail.utexas.edu>
Date: 2007-12-06 06:10:24 CET

Karl Fogel wrote:
> Branko ─îibej <brane@xbc.nu> writes:
>> 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.
> I'm all for distinguishing formally between branches and copies, but
> I'm not at all convinced it's problematic to have branches live in the
> directory hierarchy. Kind of the opposite: I've liked it so far!

I have similar feelings. In working on some of the auditing code, I've
often thought "gee, if I could only tell if this copy is a branch or a
true copy." Having branches in directory hierarchy is very useful,
especially when browsing them using mod_dav_svn and my favorite web
browser. But the extra branch v. copy metadata would be useful.

Received on Thu Dec 6 06:10:26 2007

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.