[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: Steinar Bang <sb_at_dod.no>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:27:36 +0100

>>>>> Branko ╚ibej <brane_at_xbc.nu>:

> No worries, Mike. This thread's archived, all he has to do is dig back
> a bit. :-P

Well... I haven't seen this thread and others, but I haven't seen you
describe the issues in a way that have made me understand what it is
broken with it...?

The tag-and-branch-with-a-copy thing was strange to me, when I first
started using svn, coming from a decade+ of CVS and RCS usage. But I've
gotten used to it, and now it's just the way subversion is.

What I didn't like back in 2001, and what I don't like now, is that it's
all based on conventions, which makes it hard for other front ends and
tools to figure out what's a branch and not.

Using metadata to say what's what, seems like a simple fix for that
issue, and one that can be done without changing the world.

A different world is not what I want from svn. If I want a different
world, I'll go with one of the new distributed source control systems.

FWIW perforce uses a similar model for branching, and svn's continuity
is better across branch copies, than perforce's

(not that I like perforce much, though... I have to use it at work)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-02-19 18:29:59 CET

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.