>>I am absolutely sure that this partially-record-the-local-history
>>approach would open the door to the hell of complexity
>>both for users to understand and for the implementation,
>>for the reasons explained in my previous emails.
>
>
> You're forgetting that copy == branch, therefore keeping history correct
> is important.
This argument is meaningless here,
because with my proposal you always can create a corresponding history
- just do an appropiate intermediate commit if needed!
This is exactly the spitit of a version control system.
For example:
copy trunk tags/mytag1
commit
copy tags/mytag1 branches/mybranch1
commit
Only because you want to avoid the first commit here,
you want to get into the pain of
partially-record-a-local-history?
(BTW, today you also need both commits.)
Also note that when creating tags and branches
you typically use URLs, so that you "automatically"
get theses commits:
copy http://xxxx/trunk http://xxxx/tags/mytag1
copy http://xxxx/tags/mytag1 http://xxxx/branches/mybranch1
Please, please don't go into the hell of
partially-recording-the-local-history only because
of well-ment, but non-existing "workflow optimizations" ;-)
Cheers,
Folker
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Dec 27 17:59:13 2003