ok, how about the section "Merging a Whole Branch to Another" in the
svn-book? Virtually every procedure described there has exactly the
kind of manual rev# hack that I'm talking about.
On Nov 15, 2006, at 4:08 PM, Danny van Heumen wrote:
> Tim Hill wrote:
>> I don't think it really matters what I'm trying to accomplish, my
>> point stands.
> At the moment I'm just trying to understand your point, I'm not
> ready to convince you yet because I don't know yet what to convince
> you of. (It was clear my earlier post was not entirely on-target so
> I'm trying to find out what target I need to hit. Whether it's you
> convincing me, or me convincing you.)
> Maybe you didn't notice, but I'm keeping an open mind, so if you
> have got some example cases where SVN *is* really cumbersome to
> work with, then I can understand your point.
>> There are a number of valid workflows that require the entry of
>> revision numbers in a command that are obtained from the output of
>> other commands. These "feedback" workflows are cumbersome when the
>> rev# has to be transferred by hand or by some script magically
>> parsing the output of an info/status/log command. If you want
>> examples, go scan the svn-book, which is full of them.
> Could you name some of those workflows? Or could you name sections
> of the svn-book which make your point clear?
>> The "we need labels" argument that keeps on coming up in this
>> forum is, imho, not about the lack of symbolic identifiers for
>> revision numbers: everyone points out again and again (correctly)
>> that tags do that.
> OK, this helps a little in understanding where you're going to.
>> It's about the need to directly *input* these revision numbers
>> symbolically into commands. Tags _don't_ do this because the last
>> step in the "feedback" loop is missing: I cannot use the tag on
>> the command line to represent, symbolically, a revision number.
>> That was what I was trying to show by my example.
> I've got this stupid feeling that we don't need more commands, but
> that we just need to input other arguments to get the same result.
> (Repository location instead of revision number)
> But like I said, I can't figure out what kind of Use Cases you're
> working with, so it's probably just my lack of imagination that
> gives me this feeling. (Probably because I haven't seen much
> company scenarios yet.)
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu Nov 16 04:11:30 2006