On Sep 27, 2004, at 12:30 PM, Jeremy Pereira wrote:
> The underlying function that Josh Howe is asking for is to preserve a
> copy of his tree as it was at the time of release 1.0.
No it isn't. He is asking for a way to label a particular version of
the tree. The copy is just cluttering the repository with something
that needs more work to deal with. For example the tag needs to be
protected from modifications with a pre-commit hook.
> Leaving aside all considerations of implementation, to me the "copy
> the tree to a special place calling it revision 1.0" seems the more
> natural metaphor than the "label a particular revision release 1.0".
But not to me, and not to many others. The copy can work so that it
ends up representing the same thing. But I find it less natural than
simply marking a point in development time where we call the product
> At least in this instance, it is tags that are the workaround not
> svn copy.
Note that I have never used CVS, I'm coming from a Visual Source Safe
background, where I would use a "Label" to do this sort of thing.
> Some people seem to be coming up with ideas like "x is difficult in
> subversion, but if we had tags, it'd be easy". This may be true, but
> the question should be "can we fix x without grafting on extra kludgy
> UI metaphors?"
We already have a very similar concept to that of a labeled revision
number: "HEAD", "BASE", etc.. Why is nobody suggesting to replace
HEAD with repo/tags/HEAD ? (which could be deleted and recreated on
every commit) One obvious reason is that it then forces people to
layout the repository in a certain way so the server can use the 'tags'
folder. For similar reasons, why force people to use a 'tags' folder
(or some similar thing that appears in the repository tree) instead of
the "labeled revision" method?
> One of the reasons I like subversion so much is it presents me with an
> elegant simple conceptual model which is actually more powerful than
> my previous version control system (CVS).
I agree. This isn't a show stopping feature for me by any means.
P.S. further discussion should probably go to the "I miss tags" thread.
> On Sep 27, 2004, at 15:43, Scott Palmer wrote:
>> The short answer is "You can use cheap copies as 'tags' to do this."
>> Which basically means "not exactly, but there is a workaround." See
>> the "I miss tags" thread for a more in-depth discussion.
>> On Sep 27, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Josh Howe wrote:
>>> I’m new to subversion and to this list, so please excuse my
>>> ignorance. Is there any way to give a particular revision a more
>>> meaningful name, like “release 1.0” or something? And maybe be able
>>> to pass that name to the “export” command instead of a revision
>>> number? Thanks!
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Mon Sep 27 19:33:26 2004