RE: Re: FW: [DESIGN] Aliases?

(adding the dev list to the reply, since I gathered that at least a portion of the discussion is happening there.)

Saulius Grazulis wrote:
> On Monday 27 February 2006 03:12, you wrote:
>> Personally, I think that it was a stroke of genius to realise that
>> the filesystem can already capture most of the information you're
>> interested in
>
> Agreed :)
>
>> (collections of interesting elements mainly).  The
>> Subversion guys have added finer grained information and efficiency
>> on top of that, end of story.
>
> In my view, (mis)using of directories for taging version is a
> deviation from this brilliant concept of "filesystem with history".
> This adds a special directories that are meningless for the project
> (i.e. tags/), but which must be present in order to get tag
> functionality somehow.

I have to say, my complaint is that people advocating the "trunk/tags/branches" structure are advocating using paths to store revision information, which is nonsensical to me.

Having current development code in trunk makes sense--it's a specific location in the directory structure, proceding forwards through time. Similarly, branches are copies of specific locations, which exist for some (unspecified) period of time. Tags, by definition, however, are supposed to be "snapshots" of at least a portion of the repository at a specific moment in time, and are not supposed to be mutable. Tags are inherently different from branches, and ought to be treated as such.

Trunk and branches are paths for development, and it makes sense for them to be treated as such. Tags, however, are not--and so they should not be. Seems simple enough to me.

-David

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Feb 27 15:05:55 2006