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

On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Zé <jose.passes_at_gmx.com> wrote:

> 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.

Please let me refer you to the documentation for CVS, the ancestor of
Subversion:

      http://www.cs.utah.edu/dept/old/texinfo/cvs/cvs_8.html#SEC35

There's log information, in the files of the branch, about its history
and status as a branch member. So the authors of CVS apparently
disagreed with your claim. It looks like you're interpreting a common
modern practice as fundamental to the nature of an SCM, and an aspect
so obvious it makes an SCM incorrect if the feature is not managed the
way you expect.

How many SCM's have you actually used extensively? From where do you
draw this conclusion?
Received on 2013-05-12 00:01:40 CEST