Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams aka Branches as First Class Objects?

On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 09:40:48AM -0400, Andrew Reedick wrote:
> It's not a huge problem, but in the real world (i.e. a non-contrived
> example) I have branches that have been locked and untouched for
> months that now have a new HEAD revision. And those branches, which
> are supposed to be walled off from each other until explicitly merged,
> now have a revision in common. (*Every* file and dir in the branches
> and tags dir trees now has the new, shared rev.)

It is strange behaviour on a conceptual level if you are used to
thinking in terms of other version control systems (such as ClearCase
in your case).

However, it is a natural consequence of the way Subversion is currently
supposed to represent the concepts of versioning files and directories,
and labels and branches. And it has done so for over a decade. Changing
this behaviour is far from trivial.

I'm not entirely sure what kind of answer you are hoping to get.
Are you happy with the answer that Subversion is simply not ClearCase?
Received on 2013-05-10 15:57:37 CEST