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

> 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?

I think you're stuck in cvs-land. A branch/tag is a line of
development. But "line of development" is a pretty vague concept. If
anything, I can make an argument that cvs's implementation of
branches/tags is *less* intuitive than subversion's.

For example, when I tried to explain cvs branching to my wife (who is
not a techie), she got a bit confused. When I explained the subversion
paradigm ("just make a copy"), she understood completely.

When people don't have version control systems, "making copies" is the
natural behavior for maintaining two branches of a document.

So what you're seeing here isn't an accidental screw up: "oops, we
exposed the implementation." It's a deliberate design choice. We're
presenting a specific paradigm to users.

(Now the fact that svn tree-copies take up almost no disk space --
*that's* an implementation detail. :-) )

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 3 20:29:03 2003