[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

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

From: Zé <jose.passes_at_gmx.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 18:45:03 +0100

On 05/10/2013 02:56 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> 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?

You are misrepresenting the problem. It doesn't matter if subversion
isn't like any other SCM system. The problem is that the effect of
copying, renaming or moving a file or directory around, as done by any
SCM system, is incompatible with what's expected out of a development
branch. Using svn copy to structure a repo to simulate branches and
tags is a hack. The existence of a branch shouldn't depend on whether
someone checked out an older revision or not, and creating a branch
shouldn't appear on any file's history. Essentially the people behind
all popular SCM projects understood this right from the start.

Received on 2013-05-11 19:45:37 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.