On 03/16/2012 08:32 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> BTW, there are examples out there that you'd probably dislike even more :)
> Mercurial will apply incoming changes to any local copy of a file
> ("local" here is of course a local branch, and the "update" is a "merge"
> in hg terms). So if you made N copies of the same file, all those N files
> get the incoming edits applied to them. I suppose that's something I could
> get used to, but I prefer svn to make a distinction between copies and moves.
> In our model, copies are branches, so if you wanted to apply changes to
> copies you'd merge them.
Actually, I strongly prefer this behavior of Mercurial's, and have been an
advocate for Subversion doing the same thing. In fact, I was just
discussion the "N copies of the same file" thing with a friend yesterday
because I use that paradigm myself often, creating a versioned template and
then making new files from the 'svn cp'd template. I would *love* if
Subversion would attempt to apply changes made to the template to the
various files created therefrom!
And as you might expect based on the above, I *dislike* our distinction
between copies and moves, primarily because it is such a pathetically
superficial distinction for the obvious technical reasons. I believe that
as long as "move" is modeled as a copy + delete, it should behave as a copy
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2012-03-16 14:27:49 CET