On 1/22/07 6:35 PM, "Gerco Ballintijn" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Steve Bakke wrote:
>> Subversion has been billed as the ³successor² to CVS. Granted, there are
>> many things such as tags that work in a different way. However, why is it
>> that some people take the attitude that the way subversion implements tags
>> actually covers the valid use-cases people had under CVS. Tags generally
>> are used for two types of things 1) a coherent release of a group of things.
>> 2) An attribute or indication of quality on individual files which may or
>> may not be coherent as a group.
>> Why can't we have the current subversion-style tags for some instances while
>> supporting the "status" type tag use-case? Call it something different if
>> you like. In reality, subversion tags are really just branches, and
>> "status" is what in CVS was called a moveable tag.
> The short answer is that the current implementation doesn't and cannot
> easily allow it.
> File properties are associated with a specific (revision,path), and like
> file contents, they immutable (once committed they cannot be removed)
> and revision properties refer to the whole directory tree starting at
> the repository root. Neither serves your purpose.
> The main "changeable things" in Subversion are the file and the
> directory, so you are currently stuck with those. I think it's best
> to simply consider Subversion primarily a versioned filesystem (duh!),
> and consider its operations in terms of a (versioned) file system, i.e.
> *copy* a directory (cheap and with history) and *not branch or tag*
> a directory; and not consider Subversion to be a CVS look-alike
> (blasphemy! :-).
> One problem frequently cited w.r.t. CVS tags is that their operations
> are not versioned. For instance, if you screw up with your moveable
> tag, there is no way to get back (unless you manually maintain your
> own "backup tags"). Once your "lose" them, they are gone.
I'm not necessarily suggesting that Subversion 100% copy the way that tags
worked in CVS. In fact, I would say that one thing I would really like is
the concept of CVS-style tags, but versioned along with everything else.
Tags in CVS didn't really have a history due to this. Obviously the
Subversion repository database would have to be organized a bit differently,
but it seems that it should be possible to have versioned "status" tags.
I really want the best of both worlds.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Jan 23 04:50:37 2007