On 17 Nov 2006, at 01:14, Tim Hill wrote:
>
>
> Solution 2: A tag. But wait; creating a tag takes a copy operation,
> which is a commit. I *cannot* do my foo.c commit and then follow
> this with a tag operation, since these are two distinct commits. So
> I _must_ create the tag in my working copy and then commit both the
> tag and the fix at the same time. The workflow is:
You are allowed to put a comment on an svn copy operation you know.
You could even use the same one as for the commit of the change if
you really wanted.
>
>
> Now, you and I and everyone else on this list probably understands
> #2 perfectly. But what about tech writers? Graphic artists? At a
> stretch, I have been able to get them to understand checkout and
> commit, but tags? Forget it. Too much baggage. So they get it
> wrong. Which is easier to clean-up? A bad label, or a bad branch?
> What if they forget the copy entirely? Put the tag in the wrong place?
I've seen this argument before. Are graphic artists and technical
writers really too stupid to use source code control systems? I
think your problem is in the way you are probably trying to explain
tagging. I would guess you are giving them the CVS concept of a tag
and then telling them how to implement cvs tags in Subversion.
It'd be far better to come at it from the point of view of what you
are functionally trying to do with the tags. Basically, you just
want a copy of the code when it was in a specific state. In the days
before your source code control implementation to achieve this, your
graphic designers were probably just creating a copy of the directory
with their code in it and calling it a different name. e.g. source-at-
release-1.2 or whatever. Subversion tags are no harder to understand
than that. In fact they are the same as that.
In fact, don't call them tags. I always name my "tags" directory
"releases".
>
> There are many, many users of tools like subversion who are not
> deep experts in scc subtleties. All they want is a simple linear
> system they can dump stuff into and occasionally flag a
> "significant" event with a label. Tags used in this context for
> this class of user are like the proverbial sledge-hammer to crack a
> nut.
Yes tags are, but subversion copies are not. In any case, if you
need to crack a nut, use nutcrackers, don't add a nut cracking
attachment to your sledgehammer.
>
> And is this *really* too much to ask? I've seen literally dozens of
> posts asking for this feature or something very much like it. Will
> it destroy the "purity" of subversion, or lead to feature bloat?
> Currently, subversion has an "svn:author" property, and I cannot
> think of any a single argument that has been leveled against labels
> that cannot equally apply to this property, and yet no-one is
> proposing to deprecate this "feature".
Are you serious? You don't think it's important to know who
committed a revision.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 17 17:45:08 2006