Yes! That's precisely my point. Rev numbers and dates by themselves
don't really have much useful semantic information. So what do I do?
(1) Grind through the log looking for meaningful checkin messages.
(2) Keep some sort of spreadsheet to track (say) build numbers to
revision numbers.
The issue I have is that these are both out-of-band hacks, while a label
system would be in-band.
--Tim
H. S. Teoh wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>Excuse me for chiming in here, but I'd like to say I agree with this,
>too. IMHO, we should not confuse symbolic revisions with tags (in the
>CVS sense). This used to be my mental block that made me dislike
>symbolic tags, but now that I consider it more carefully, it does make
>a lot of sense.
>
>First of all, forget about CVS tags. We all know that is already
>adequately addressed under the current system. But consider this:
>
>Subversion is essentially a filesystem with full history over time.
>The reason we want a filesystem with time history is so that we can
>retrieve the state of the filesystem as it was at time X. But since
>the history of the filesystem generally has a lot of checkpoints (lots
>of commits), it is infeasible for a user to keep track of which
>checkpoints (revision numbers) are of interest. In fact, in the ideal
>case we *don't want* to require the user to play with revision
>numbers.
>
>
>
>
Received on Wed May 4 03:47:54 2005