Monks, Peter wrote:
> 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.
Let me put it this way. For svn to be a REPLACEMENT for cvs it would be
sufficient for me to replace "cvs" with "svn" in any scripts that I
might have and the would work with subversion just like they did with
cvs. This isn't the case.
However, SVN is an ALTERNATIVE to CVS for managing revision control.
>
>
>>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! ;-)
I'm not writing off SVN I'm just saying it's an alternative to CVS not a
replacement for it.
>
> 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)
From my reading of this list, I know I'm not the only one that has
issues with tags and branches in SVN so hopefully you're right. You
never know I might find time myself.
Peter
PS CVS has its problems but not all of CVS's view of the world was bad
and (IMHO) SVN has thrown away some of the good bits, specifically the
CONCEPT of branches and tags. Arguably, the CVS implementation of these
concepts needed improvement but copy isn't that improvement as it
doesn't implement the CONCEPT (just provides a means with which the
CONCEPT can be implemented and leaves the donkey work to the user).
--
Dr Peter Williams, Chief Scientist peterw@aurema.com
Aurema Pty Limited Tel:+61 2 9698 2322
PO Box 305, Strawberry Hills NSW 2012, Australia Fax:+61 2 9699 9174
79 Myrtle Street, Chippendale NSW 2008, Australia http://www.aurema.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Oct 24 09:48:46 2004