On 2/24/2006 9:09 PM, Saulius Grazulis wrote:
> On Friday 24 February 2006 20:38, you wrote:
>
>> I think your problem is in trying to avoid the extra directory level.
>
> Exactely.
>
>> By not putting your trunk into svn+ssh://repo/trunk, you're losing out
>> on the possibility of tags, branches, etc. Don't do that.
>
> Why shouldn't I do that? I *need* to do that. Or I *want* if you like it.
> Subversion should not force on me the way I should construct my repos/working
> copies.
It doesn't say anything about how you construct your working copies, but
it does say that if you want multiple branches of your project, they
need to be in separate non-nested directories. That's fundamental to
its design.
The way you've chosen to use it makes it impossible for you to have
multiple branches. That's one reason why you shouldn't do that. You're
cutting yourself off from some useful functionality.
>
>> Assuming you use the recommended layout for your repository, your
>> command would be simply
>>
>> svn export
>> svn+ssh://repo/tags/PAPER_I_HAVE_SENT_TO_THE_EDITOR_ON_2005.11.11
>>
>> which doesn't look all that different from what you were asking for.
>
> I know this method. I find it very cumbersome and confusing.
>
> Especially confusing it is to people that are new to subversion. It takes me
> too long to explain every new person who starts using Subversion (after it
> took me a long time to convince him/her how cool Subversion is ;) to explain
> why they should not check out the repo but some strange 'trunk', WTF those
> 'tags' are, why commit to them fails. Why are 'tags' different from
> 'branches', etc etc.
I think the explanation is simple enough: you want to name the main
line of development 'trunk' to allow yourself to have other lines of
development. If you only have a single linear stream of revisions, you
make development much more difficult: you have to tell people not to
commit changes during 'code freeze', etc.
Once people understand the utility of having branches, then tags are
easy: they're just branches that everyone agrees are frozen.
>
> Labels would save me a *lot* of trouble.
I think they'd save you a little bit of trouble, but they'd cause more
in the end, because people would commit experimental code during testing
for a release, etc. People make mistakes, and svn is a good tool for
stopping those mistakes from having worse consequences than necessary.
>
> The whole argument against labels seems to me a bit like asm/hll discussion:
>
> "I want to have procedure calls and objects to use in my programs"
>
> "Why? You can happily do this in assembler. (example follows). Easy as a pie"
I don't think that analogy is at all apt. You want to force the
repository to be used in a strictly linear fashion, while the normal way
is more structured.
Duncan Murdoch
>
> Regards,
> Saulius
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Feb 25 16:01:54 2006