On 26-Feb-06, at 5:20 PM, Tom Mornini wrote:
> On Feb 26, 2006, at 10:42 AM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>> As it is, I have NEVER made a 'tag' with subversion.
> Wait...let me get this straight:
> You're suggesting a change to Subversion, which many users
> are suggesting is unnecessary (and vice-versa..certainly),
> and you've *NEVER* tried the method people are telling you
> gives you what you want, because it doesn't fit with your
> *current feelings* about the "naturalness" of the method,
> and some heart-felt belief that the cheap copies method
> is some sort of hack.
> If your statement is true, this is some of the most most
> ridiculous and irrational behavior I have ever witnessed.
I know that I don't want to shoot myself in the head without ever
having tried it either.
Your logic is seriously flawed. I've read the subversion book, I
believe I understand how tags/cheap copies are used. As they have
been described in the book and as I understand them, they are not
labels on a branch, they are a new branch... they don't work as
labels on a branch at all without a bunch of extra hook scripts, and
even then they are a bit awkward to deal with and still have to be
enforced by usage policy because Subversion lacks the concept of a
> For goodness sakes, Scott, open your mind a bit and give
> Subversion an honest try. I'll let you in on a little
> secret...it's NOT CVS, and it never will be.
I've never used CVS, other than grabbing a copy of some open source
projects. I've found CVS to be a bit unintuitive and Subversion
appeared more intuitive from the first point that I took a look at
it. Part of that might be the excellent Subversion Book - I didn't
read an equivalent for CVS, but then again I was never motivated to.
So I don't care that Subversion is not CVS... it's not relevant to
the discussion as far as I can tell.
Simply because I don't "tag" with cheap copies doesn't mean I am not
giving Subversion an honest try. I generally love Subversion. I came
from a background of using VSS and I find Subversion much better in
> P.S. I wouldn't mind named tags, but it seems to me that
> they should refer to both a revision number AND a path.
They do. My suggestions was that they be implemented as a proof of
concept using a property on a directory. Path and revision
together... no problem.
> Why do I want them? Simply to avoid all future repeats
> of these stupid threads, and the ability to implement
> non-optimal development practices at organizations that
> simply refuse to modernize their development approaches
> to allow branched development.
If you are going to make wild statements about "non-optimal
development practices" you should back them up with some facts.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Mon Feb 27 17:32:00 2006