On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 11:46 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> I was thinking today about how Subversion offers all this flexibility in
> terms of branch creation ("it's just a copy of a directory!") but sometimes
> at the cost of some benefits you might otherwise get from a first-class
> branch object.
> Could a really, really simple solution help here? What if Subversion
> recognized a directory property (say, "svn:branch-root") as an indicator
> that that directory is the root of a branch (where by "branch", I mean "line
> of development", which includes trunk and tags)? Benefits could include:
> * the fact that the property would naturally get set on copies of that
> directory, ensuring that branches of the directory are annotated as
> * helping the client discourage commits of subsets of a branch.
> * helping the client warn users about merging at anything less than
> the branch level.
> * helping tools like ViewVC and Trac identify branches, and add UI
> goodness accordingly.
> It sounds too simple to be truly useful. What do others think?
I have been trying to think about how we can retroactively improve
merge tracking and was thinking of something similar where you could
(optionally) flag your root folder with a property like this. If
Merge sees the property it could record all mergeinfo only at that
location. I was not thinking of denying the ability to perform a
merge at a subtree, but to still record it at the root as if it was a
This would allow tools like TruMerge to fire off a bunch of subtree
merges and have them all recorded properly at the branch root.
Would you just set this property any time a folder is copied, or would
it be better to add a --branch option to svn copy to designate when to
use it? Or even an svn branch subcommand?
I'd probably like to see us go further and define an svn:project-root
property with information on the branches and tags root folder
locations. Then this could be used to also simplify the syntax of
other commands where branches/tags are used. Of course there are a
lot of devils in those details.
Received on 2009-09-09 17:54:39 CEST