On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Zé <jose.passes_at_gmx.com> wrote:
>
> No one is dismissing anyone's work. Quite the contrary. I don't know
I'm afriad you did, with the insistence that branching *in the form
you expect* is a given in all SCM's, and that Subversion is therefore
clearly missing a very critical and quite necessary feature. It's a
common behavior, true, but if you look at Subversion's ancestor CVS
you see that it did not exist, either, in that clean but restrictive
layout. I've also pointed out to you that the top repository root
based branching, if built integrally into the software, makes the
branching or tagging of subdirectories very difficult. It can actively
interfere with the workflow of quite a few people who pop small,
related tools into branches to test them and who may never attempt to
integrate them into the trunk.
I'm not saying it's the best approach, but the flexibility of the
purely directory based and not software based workflow can be useful.
> 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
Yes, it has been quite clear that you've chosen to redefine branching
as something that is derived from particular software features, rather
than actual workflow. Please, go look up branching: the Wikipedia
entry for "Branching (revision control)" is pretty good, and says
*nothing* about the kind of additional constraints you are insisting
are inherent to branching. It's as if someone wrote the definition
based on how people actually use the word!
Received on 2013-05-15 14:00:34 CEST