>
> Tags and branches are the same thing. The only difference is whether
> you decide to change them or not. It's true in CVS, and it's true in
> Subversion. The difference between the two, however, is that if I
> 'adjust' a tag in CVS, there's no record of that fact. There is with
> Subversion -- in fact, I can easily revert the change.
...which is good, and I for one have no problems with tags. But I would
still argue that labels have some virtues of their own that are not
present in tags:
(1) Provide a first-class, in-band declaration of a fixed snapshot that
*cannot* be changed (admin hacks aside). Tags can only do this out-of-band.
(2) Avoid branch "clutter", which can be fatal to large projects.
(3) Provide an additional "dimension" on the repository that is
independent of the existing directory structure.
I confess not to understand the "anti-label" arguments... Are they based
on priorities and/or workload? That's fine, labels might be p99 or
lower, and maybe never get implemented. But is there something
inherently "bad" about labels as proposed? If labels magically appeared
in an SVN build (free), would people be saying "take them out!", "Don't
use them -- bad"? Why?
--Tim
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 3 23:26:53 2005