Re: CVS/SVN comparison

On Oct 22, 2004, at 2:19 PM, Keven Ring wrote:

> Scott Palmer wrote:
>> In other words, you had to write your own code to work around the
>> lack of this feature in subversion. :)
>
> IIRC, CVS does not have *any* ACL built in (I know that there are
> pre-commit "hooks" for CVS, but someone had to write their own code).

I don't care about CVS. I have never used it and never will. And I'm
not really talking about access control as much as I want an easy
common way to make immutable copies (what I will call "tags")
regardless of how I choose to access the repository.

> You are unwilling to accept what Subversion calls a "tag" as a
> "tag", because it doesn't fit your definition.

Exactly. In other words, where is the flexibility you speak of below
if it can't fit my definition :) ?

> There are other ways to create a "tag" without copying that ensure
> immutability (eg, via properties), but then there are other issues.
> The bottom line is that "tags" are an idea, and subversion provides a
> recommended convention for supporting that idea. IMHO, this is better
> than enforcing a single convention, and forcing everyone to fit to
> that model, like it or not.

I agree.. the problem is it does not support my model of what a tag is
without extra work.

Scott

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 22 21:26:01 2004