Tim Hill wrote:
>
> I cannot talk for others, but my intention has _never_ been to replace
> tags with labels, for the very reasons you state. However, you are
> talking about _your_ usage model for subversion. There are many, many
> installs where Subversion is used as little more than a historical
> time-machine for a simple, linear, development cycle. In these simple
> scenarios there is _NO_ "path" co-ordinate to manage, since there are no
> branches at all: everything happens on the trunk (yes, really!).
>
I assume you also "require" that only a single "project" is maintained
per repository.
The workflow context of your proposol would thus be:
- Single project per repository
- No branches
- No tags
This means that your "simple" users should be kept away from Subversion
documents that describe these techniques. I am not so sure that you can
contain your (and not just your) users in this simplified Subversion
world.
Have you considered the "upgrade" problems? People that think they can
suffice with labels, but at a later require more functionality and need
the current tagging mechanism. For instance, because they want to add an
extra project to the repository, and thus have projects that share the
same label name space? I expect this to an extra source of confusion.
As a side note, it is a "policy break" in Subversion that two over-
lapping concepts (in this case actually one a subset of the other), get
different mechanism to satisfy different user groups. I can imagine that
the Subversion stewards would find this a dangerous precedent (the
slippery slope argument).
With regards,
Gerco.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Nov 23 14:18:12 2006