On Monday 10 January 2011, Derek Atkins wrote: > Geert Janssens <janssens-ge...@telenet.be> writes: > > On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote: > >> I don't like that history is a pretty flexible thing and that "branches" > >> are just pointers to specific commits, rather than the kind of > >> "followable path" that svn provides. > > > > That's interesting, because I feel exactly the oposite. I don't like it > > that for svn a branch or tag is a path into the repository. It has > > always felt artificial to me and if not treated with proper care could > > put you into very unwanted situations like people inadvertently > > committing changes to a tagged release. > > I guess this is mostly a matter of taste and what you are most used to > > though... > > I like that branches are paths, because you DO want to be able to make > additional commits into a branch. So I don't agree with you there.
After I sent my message I realised I should have treated tags and branches differently. I agree obviously that it should be possible to commit changes to branches. git and svn implement this requirement in different ways. I just happen to prefer the git way even though I have a lot more experience in svn. But as I said, this is personal and subjective. > However, I do agree with you about tags. > > IMHO branches and tags are (and should be) fundamentally different. A > branch should be a path, but a tag is, well, a tag. > > > Geert > > -derek _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
