G'day Scott,
> I have no problem with the implementation of tags as cheap copies,
I don't want to misrepresent anyone, but I believe that Peter W does
have a problem with this notion, and what Jeremy and I (and others in
this and other threads) have tried to explain is exactly what you've
just stated: that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with SVN's
model of representing tags and branches as cheap copies.
AFAICT the only point Peter has made is that this notion is different
to CVS (which I don't think is news to anyone), and that it might
confuse some CVS users (which I also don't think is news to anyone).
But clearly this does not support Peter's original assertion that SVN
is not a replacement for CVS.
> but the interface could be improved out-of-the-box if subversion
> had built-in support for read-only copies and the link between the
> copy and the original was more obvious.
I agree. But AFAICT neither of these facilities is incompatible with
the fundamental model of branches and tags as cheap copies. Yes
they're limitations of the current version of the software, but:
1. IMVHO they're little more than minor irritations - certainly not
sufficient justification to write off the entire system. After
all, think of all the minor (and major!) irritations a user of CVS
or VSS has to put up with! ;-)
2. I have faith that if enough people find they need these features,
eventually one of them will be a person who has the time and skill
to implement a solution (Subversion is open source software after
all)
Cheers,
Peter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Monks http://www.sydneyclimbing.com/
pmonks_at_sydneyclimbing.com http://www.geocities.com/yosemite/4455/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Oct 24 06:05:52 2004