> On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 10:50:12PM +0100, Zé wrote:
> > You're missing the point. The point is that subversion could be even
> > better than what it already is if it actually supported branches.
> OK, I would also like Subversion to get better, so we agree here.
> Now, what kinds of improvements would you hope to gain from adding a first-
> class concept called "branch" to the current system?
> Keep in mind that adding a new dimension to the current repository data model
> is a huge amount of work. We need a design spec that is solid, and we need to
> have a very good idea of how to implement that design, using the current
> system as a starting point.
> We need to know how all existing operations will be affected by the extended
> data model, and how they need to behave in the new data model.
> We need to define use cases and test cases for any new behaviour.
> We need to know if and how these changes affect our two network
> communication protocols, and perhaps implement changes there.
> And it also needs to be backwards compatible all the way back to SVN 1.0.
That is only true if this change is 1.something. But, if it is 2.0 then the svn rules allow for a break in backward compatibility.
What I don't understand is why someone argues about how git does something is better yet uses svn. Use the tool that works for you, or works the way you expect a tool to work.
Received on 2013-05-13 16:05:16 CEST