________________________________________
From: Hans-Emil Skogh [mailto:Hans-Emil.Skogh@tritech.se]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:06 AM
To: dev@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Subject: RE: RE: RE: Suggestion: Branch/tag-dialog change
> :-D You tell me! You were the one who started to involving different
philosophies in the discussion. I still say that using HEAD for tagging is a
bad idea no matter what philosophy you are using. Some philosophies can
reduce the risks, but not eliminate it. Hence it's always better to use
a specific revision instead of HEAD for tagging.
Yes, I involved MY philosophy because you involved YOUR philosophy in the
original email. Our philosophies are apparently different at which time, in
my opinion, the entire discussion should be punted in favor of the svn
command line convention, in which operations default against operating on
the HEAD. It seems logical that if theoretically, 1/2 the people want it one
way, 1/2 the people want it the other, then the convention of the parent
project should be used as a convention default.
> I did not suggest to remove the feature. Only to make another option the
default. The SVN-usage philosophy has nothing to do with it. (And I still
have not told you what method I prefer. I have only said that not everyone
uses the method you used in your argument.)
Of course the SVN usage philosophy has something to do with it. It doesn't
make sense to do the opposite thing that the svn command client does.
> No. That will only guarantee absolute knowledge of the revision you are
tagging if there is only one person who have commit access to trunk, and
that is the same and only person that has access to create tags. In a multi
user environment you cannot guarantee it. You just cant.
And how do people using the command line deal with this problem? The answer
seems obvious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@tortoisesvn.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 21 15:29:26 2006