>> :-D You tell me! You were the one who started to involving different
>> philosophies in the discussion.
> Yes, I involved MY philosophy because you involved YOUR philosophy
> in the original email.
No. I was not stating a development philosophy. I was stating FACT. You might check the difference with your local dictionary or similar. (If you are confused by now, please go back and read what I actually wrote in earlier emails in this thread.)
> 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 still think that the "Branch/Tag..." dialog in TSVN is not equivalent to "svn copy" (or similar), and therefore does not think that the command line default is directly applicable. Different design objectives, different solutions.
(And I would say "one person", not "half the people" if we are the only two persons discussing. But since it would be very rude not to count Russell I would have go for "66.6% of the people" in favour of my suggestion. ;-) )
> And how do people using the command line deal with this problem? The answer
> seems obvious.
Would you please have a look at the "Creating a Simple Tag" section in the SVN-book; that more or less recommends using a explicit revision:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn-book.html#svn.branchmerge.tags.mksimple
and also the tip further down in the "Externals Definitions" chapter that echoes the same principle and discusses it somewhat more in-depth:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn-book.html#svn.advanced.externals
Best of luck on your reading!
Hans-Emil
Received on Wed Jun 21 16:09:36 2006