On Sep 2, 2005, at 11:10 AM, John Allen wrote:
> On Thursday 01 September 2005 23:56, Ian Eure wrote:
>
>> On Sep 1, 2005, at 3:23 PM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>>
>>> Is all the fuss about trying to find the revision which is the
>>> 'base' of the branch? The whole running 'svn log --stop-on-copy'
>>> to figure out when the branch was created?
>>>
>>> Why not, when creating the branch, also make a tag of it:
>>>
>>> $ svn cp trunkURL branchURL
>>> $ svn cp branchURL branch-beginning-tag-URL
>>>
>>> [...make changes on branch...]
>>>
>>> $ svn checkout trunkURL; cd trunk
>>> $ svn merge branch-beginning-tag-URL branchURL
>>>
>>
>> Still too much work. And I believe you omitted the delete/recreate
>> step for thee branch-beginning tag, which is still more work. And
>> creating new tags/branches slooooooow.
>>
>>
>
> Creating tags, and branches in SVN is super fast. Just make sure
> you use URLs
> to create, don't do the copy locally.
>
> eg.
> svn copy -q -m "Branch for mad changes" svn://svn/repo/admin/main
> svn://svn/repo/admin/tags/release-1.0.41.0
>
> Happens more or less instantly. The switch your working copy to
> that tag with
> svn switch
> svn switch svn://svn/repo/admin/tags/release-1.0.41.0
>
>
>
>> But this is my point - Subversion knows (or should know) the revision
>> at which a branch was created, so why is all this screwing around
>> with revision numbers and tags necessary in the first place?
>>
>>
>
> You are suffering from 2 problems
> 1. SVN is just a better CVS. It is better but it is also different,
> you need
> to learn how it works best, not make it work live CVS
> 2. You are suffering from branchitis. You are clearly creating
> branches willy
> nilly, and this is a recipe for disaster.
>
> I only create branches from release tags, that way I can always see
> the diffs
> between the branch, and the release. Also when I release from a
> branch I just
> increment the last number in the rev, so I can clearly see it is a
> branch
> release.
>
"Better" is a subjective term. I feel that it has significant issues
which make it worse than CVS. And I am most definitely not suffering
from "branchitis;" I've only created two branches.
Perhaps instead of arguing over minutiae, someone would be kind
enough to explain the usual way for using SVN in the following scenario:
- There is a live setup for production, a staging setup for testing,
and a dev setup for active development.
- Major work is undertaken on the dev setup
- While major work is underway, minor changes may be necessary on the
production setup
- After major dev work is complete, it's moved to the staging setup
and tested
- Bugs are discovered and fixed
- Fixed code is moved to the live setup
--
Ian Eure
Developer,
eNotes.com LLC
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 2 20:38:07 2005