On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2011 at 12:36:58PM -0500, NN Ott wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >> To recap, as Les put it:
> > > >>
> > > >> I think the idea is that he'd like to see the development history of
> > > both the vendor and local changes as a continuous set of changes as you
> > > would if they were in the same repository with log and diff working
> across
> > > any points in time or branch versions. It seems like a reasonable
> thing to
> > > want, but I don't think it is possible with subversion.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I don't think the request can be met by Subversion. Subversion is a
> > > centralized version control system; the request is met by not using a
> > > centralized version control system, but instead using a distributed
> version
> > > control system.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > With the new merge tracking capability being added, I would think this
> could
> > be on the horizon as well. A full fledged distributed system hardly is
> > needed or even what I am looking for.
>
> Merge tracking has nothing to do with this feature request.
>
> > Has such a feature request already been logged?
>
> No, and there is no point in logging it.
>
> The basic concept of a centralized version control system is that a
> repository is a single universe. Changes only "happen" in that universe
> and you cannot (easily) move or replay changes between universes without
> losing the unique identifier the change had in its original universe.
>
>
> It sounds like what you really want is commit access to the upstream
> Subversion repository, possibly restricted to a special branch.
> Then your change identifiers would be in the same universe.
>
>
I just want the svn copy/log/diff/merge logic to see past, and account for,
and svn:external barrier. Very much a one-way flow of changes. Imho,
doesn't seem too bizzare or non-svn like.
How is the external svn rev number + repo info not enough to enable the sort
of local tracking of copy+merge this would require?
Received on 2011-01-11 19:37:14 CET