On Fri, Sep 24, 2004 at 05:06:32PM -0400, Labanca, Rick wrote:
> > > I just need to be able to easily get there, WITHOUT having
> > > to track down the revision number. Otherwise, we have to
> > have documentation
> > > showing the mapping between build numbers and revision numbers.
> > You don't need to know any revision numbers. If you have tagged build
> > 42 as /tags/xyz_build42, you could just do:
> > svn co /tags/xyz_build42
> > k
> > Job done. No revision numbers involved.
> But for a merge don't you have to find the version number of that tag so
> you can pass it along to your merge? I would make a tag as you show
> above to mark when I last merged say from the trunk to branch foo.
I was under the impression that you can run svn merge something along
svn merge url://path/tags/branch01 url://path/branches/01 /working/copy
I.e., tag the branch point, then commit changes to branch, and when
you want to merge, you do the above, which uses the HEAD revision of
the tag (which is identical to the base revision of the branch) and
the HEAD revision of the branch. I use CVS at work, and this is pretty
much an analogous process.
(Disclaimer: I haven't used branching very much in my relatively short
usage of svn, so this may not be the best way to do things, but at
least it works, in principle.)
> Then to merge from that tag onward, I do a log to find the rev number
> and use that rev thru head as my merge source. That's the extra step I
> don't like and why the alias idea is good.
I didn't see the need to use log so far. Am I missing something?
> I don't know why there is so much resistance to a convenience feature
> that doesn't replace what's there already.
> Like some of the others (especially the simplicity message) I just find
> it clunky as it is. It may be that I'm just too new to it. But using
> what look like copies as tags just one the face of it looks like a hack.
> I get odd responses from all of our guys trying to explain it that's for
And like some have said, I'm not opposed to a convenience feature.
I'm just trying to find out if there actually is a scenario where said
feature would be a significant advantage compared to what is currently
available. Right now, it seems that it's just a way of making svn look
like other revision control tools with no real added functionality,
and I'm not convinced that's sufficient grounds for introducing new
> So you can be right in theory, but the messages indicate a fair number
> of newcomers find that the copy/tag replacing a simple revision alias
> doesn't sit well, for whatever reason.
Well, let's see what happens when that proposal is posted. If it
presents a good case for having this feature, then sure, I'll all for
Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Use your hands...
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Sat Sep 25 00:49:40 2004