On 05/13/2013 04:21 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
> Yes, I get what you are saying. But, to claim the way svn supports
> branches and tags is a "hack" doesn't seem like a productive
> conversation. It is far from a hack and that statement dismisses all
> the hard work of design and implementation that went into svn almost
> dismissing the whole team many of which are volunteers.
>
> It would be nice if branches could become a first class object with
> the branch command being very specific. But, what we have is far from
> a hack if you understand how it works.
>
> I would like to see more "first class" support for projects and/or
> defining a project root. For example, perhaps there can be an
> svn:projectroot property that must be on a folder and the
> branch/merge command will only work on project roots. If that is done
> of course the maintain backward compatibility there could be a switch
> in the client config to allow for bypassing this requirement, or
> perhaps the --force switch could do it. Also, a property can be place
> on a branch so that tooling can know it is actually a semantic branch
> rather than just a fork (copy).
>
>
No one is dismissing anyone's work. Quite the contrary. I don't know
where you managed to get that idea. What has been said regarding
subversions lack of support for branching was, I think, quite clear.
You may prefer using euphemisms such as "first class support" to refer
to the actual support for branches, and in the process actually agree
with what has been said about subversion and branches, but that doesn't
mean that referring to the same issue through different names implies
that anyone is dismissing anyone's work.
--
Zé
Received on 2013-05-14 22:33:40 CEST