On Wed, May 20, 2009 at 12:00:43PM +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 05:34:18PM +0100, Bolstridge, Andrew wrote:
> > I was browsing the dev list today, and I found a message from someone
> > who suggested just this - store a label to revnum mapping in revprop
> > 0. Unfortunately he didn't get too favourable a response, possibly
> > because the flamewar of "branching v labelling" was still too fresh.
> >
> > I still think it's a great idea, but I feel the devs think that the
> > branch facilities are so great that they *should* be used for tagging.
>
> I'm a dev and I don't think the branching/tagging facilities are as
> good as they should be. I think that a lot of the merge-tracking problems
> we have or have had (e.g. subtree merge-info being created where it's not
> needed) are due to an insufficient destination between copies of
s/destination/distinction/
Sorry,
Stefan
> directories and branches and tags. Putting all these concepts together
> under "copy" was fine before merge-tracking, but now it creates problems
> because e.g. a directory that is the root of a branch is special and
> Subversion doesn't know that.
>
> I have not been thinking deeply about it yet, and I would
> welcome a discussion on how Subversion could best be made aware
> of were branch and tag boundaries are in the versioned tree.
> For example, we could have:
> svn branch
> svn tag
> commands, which do what svn copy does nowadays, plus creating
> a versioned svn:branch or svn:tag property on the directory
> to mark a boundary.
>
> And we'd need to know what effects these boundaries should have
> on operations like commit, update, merge, copy, move, add, remove,
> and so on. For example, we might not want to allow copies or moves
> across branch boundaries.
>
> But this is really high-level thinking and a lot of work needs
> to be done before a usable proposal can be made.
>
> > I don't like the tag functionality so far - I'd have created thousands
> > of branches to date if we used it (as we release every little change
> > explicitly for our customers)
>
> Well, yes, you have to adjust your workflow to Subversion.
> As with any other tool. Please show me one version control tool
> on the planet that does not assume _any_ particular workflow :)
>
> And note that you can add hook-scripts that make tags read-only by
> rejecting future commits to them.
>
> Stefan
Received on 2009-05-20 13:18:48 CEST