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

Subversion history: Why was/is tagging/branching implemented as copy?

From: Joachim Fabini <Joachim.Fabini_at_gmx.net>
Date: 2003-11-03 13:23:37 CET


Can someone of the Subversion developer crew please detail
on the project decision to implement Subversion tagging
and branching as explicit copy? Are there any thoughts or is
there any ongoing work to later on implement a sort of
"true" tagging and branching?

Everything below is written from the user's point of view.
I am sure that there was a specific (fundamental) reason for
the copy-decision. Mostly because tags and branches shield
the repository implementation from the user, which is
highly desirable. I consider svn copy as a repository-specific
detail of tagging/branching implementation that end-users are
most likely not interested in and that they should be shielded

I searched the Subversion archives but did not find any
details related to the decision. What I _did_ find were
some documents and postings that discuss on the "right"
way how to structure a repository, how to copy Subversion
trees in order to "correctly" tag or branch, etc.
Don't you see this, too, as a confirmation of my guess that
versioning as currently implemented by Subversion is the
rather undesirable exposing of implementation matters to

How do you see this topic? Is it just my personal problem,
my biasing towards concepts I have grown with (ClearCase-user)?
Or, are native tags really a concept that Subversion lacks?

Thanks in advance
Best regards

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 3 20:12:21 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.