[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Mnemomic names for revisions

From: Tim Hill <tim_at_realmsys.com>
Date: 2005-05-03 23:28:48 CEST

...totally agree here. I'm not necessarily arguing that labels are so
important they should be P1, or even P99. The cost/benefit trade-off is
probably low enough given the availability of tags that its not worth
it. I guess what bugged me was I was hearing more absolute arguments
like "labels are worthless, they are just tags", which I don't think is
true.

--Tim

Dale Worley wrote:

>you use a specialized instance of general feature X, or do you use a
>specialized feature Y? The advantage of X is that it requires no new
>implementation of tools; the disadvantage is that it demands a "secret
>decoder ring", additional information on how X is used to achieve A. The
>advantage of Y is that it can be tailored for A; the disadvantage is that it
>has to be implemented. The critical questions are "How much extra work does
>it take to implement Y versus just using X?" and "How much better a solution
>to A is Y than X?"
>
>In this case, I think that a specialized named-revision scheme would
>probably take quite a bit of work to implement, despite that it's
>conceptually trivial -- there's a lot of overhead to adding a feature to a
>complex system. And nobody has made the case that true named-revisions
>would save users a great deal of hassle.
>
>Dale
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
>
>
> It's one of the traditional design tradeoffs -- If you wish to achieve
> A, do
Received on Tue May 3 23:30:54 2005

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.