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

Re: RFC: Untangling the peg revision knot (was: A preliminary study of non-contiguous transformations in the Hilbert space of Alexandrian solutions)

From: Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:39:25 -0500

On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 3:25 PM, Branko ibej <brane_at_xbc.nu> wrote:
> C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>> Well, I did consider that perhaps as an early Subversion user with some gaps
>> in participation along the way (like gstein, who voiced similar complaints),
>> you might be one of those who knew nothing but -r (because that's all there
>> was for several years) and simply missed the innovation that was peg
>> revisions. Old habits are hard to break, even when they no longer serve you
>> beneficially.
> It appears that all the people I've ever spoken to, except for some on
> this list, are early Subversion users and are confused by the
> *incompatible change in behaviour* that happened with the introduction
> of peg revisions.
> Note that I've known about peg revs from day one and how they work, and
> *still* get bitten by a change that I find non-intuitive.
> I wonder if it would make sense to do a survey on the users@ list about
> this. I prophesy that most responses would be either "what's a peg
> revision?" or "yes, I get bitten by that all the time."

I'd say that understanding a 2-dimensional namespace is going to be
complicated no matter what we do. We can argue whether the default
should be HEAD or the operative revision, but I think having the
default change based on the command or other options would just make
it more confusing to users.

Mark Phippard
Received on 2008-11-26 21:39:39 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.