Problem: Subversion doesn't have branches.
Subversion has directory objects, and we Humans(tm) arbitrarily decide that
some directories are "branches," thereby giving these directories (branches)
magical powers and mystical significance. Meanwhile, Subversion grinds on,
treating those magic
On 09.05.2013 22:08, Andrew Reedick wrote:
> Problem: Subversion doesn't have branches.
>
> Subversion has directory objects, and we Humans(tm) arbitrarily decide that
> some directories are "branches," thereby giving these directories (branches)
> magical powers and mystical significance. Me
> -Original Message-
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 4:35 PM
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branches as First Class Objects?
>
>
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 09:40:48AM -0400, Andrew Reedick wrote:
> It's not a huge problem, but in the real world (i.e. a non-contrived
> example) I have branches that have been locked and untouched for
> months that now have a new HEAD revision. And those branches, which
> are supposed to be walle
On 10.05.2013 15:56, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 09:40:48AM -0400, Andrew Reedick wrote:
>> It's not a huge problem, but in the real world (i.e. a non-contrived
>> example) I have branches that have been locked and untouched for
>> months that now have a new HEAD revision. And
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 8:40 AM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
>>
> It's not a huge problem, but in the real world (i.e. a non-contrived example)
> I have branches that have been locked and untouched for months that now have
> a new HEAD revision. And those branches, which are supposed to be walled off
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 9:57 AM
> To: Andrew Reedick
> Cc: Branko Čibej; users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branc
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:20:54AM -0500, Andrew Reedick wrote:
> It makes me wonder if it would make sense to slap a
> higher-level interface on top of svn in order to implement the process
> aspects of version control (and otherwise hide/keep the lower level
> details/quirks away from users.)
Ye
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 11:00 AM
> To: Andrew Reedick
> Cc: Branko Čibej; users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> a
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
>
>> Isn't this just a difference in subversion's and your thinking about
>> the significance of the path change? Subversion is going to see the
>> path change affecting everything below it because of the way it holds
>> projects together.
-Steve
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2013 08:41
> To: Andrew Reedick
> Cc: Branko Čibej; users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> a
On 05/09/2013 09:35 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
The real problem here is that Subversion does not treat/renames/ as
atomic operations.
I think that the real problem here is that Subversion doesn't support
branches. The fact is that moving or copying a file or directory around
is not the semanti
On 05/10/2013 02:56 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
It is strange behaviour on a conceptual level if you are used to
thinking in terms of other version control systems (such as ClearCase
in your case).
However, it is a natural consequence of the way Subversion is currently
supposed to represent the c
On 11.05.2013 19:25, Zé wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 09:35 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> The real problem here is that Subversion does not treat/renames/ as
>> atomic operations.
>
> I think that the real problem here is that Subversion doesn't support
> branches. The fact is that moving or copying a file
Guten Tag Zé,
am Samstag, 11. Mai 2013 um 19:45 schrieben Sie:
> 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 understo
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 06:45:03PM +0100, Zé 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
On 05/11/2013 08:46 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 06:45:03PM +0100, Zé 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 do
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Zé wrote:
> On 05/09/2013 09:35 PM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>>
>> The real problem here is that Subversion does not treat/renames/ as
>> atomic operations.
>
>
> I think that the real problem here is that Subversion doesn't support
> branches. The fact is that moving
On 05/11/2013 08:25 PM, Thorsten Schöning wrote:
I have a repo for binaries of one of our software which doesn't need
installation, which gets directly deployed to our customers. Each
customer is something like a branch or tag and some of the customers
are grouped for some reason, sharing the sam
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Zé 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
Guten Tag Zé,
am Samstag, 11. Mai 2013 um 23:26 schrieben Sie:
> That's not exactly a development branch, but a directory tree.
That's simply a matter of taste and what I said for customer/server
related hierarchies of tags fits perfectly well for branches which
develop towards e.g. one bigger fe
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
> 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 improv
On 05/13/2013 10:04 AM, Bob Archer wrote:
> 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.
Oh, I'm sure if we tried we could all think up plenty of reasons why someo
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Bob Archer wrote:
>
> 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.
Or, learn what to expect from the tool you use... If I fol
> On 05/13/2013 10:04 AM, Bob Archer wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Oh, I'm sure if we tried we could all think up plenty of reaso
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:21:15PM +, Bob Archer wrote:
> 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 proje
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
>> 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 p
On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:29:39 +, Les Mikesell wrote:
...
> ...What does git do if
> you try to double-merge a change?
You can't.
> Does it know about the previous
> merge by its changeset commit id, look at the contents that are
> already present, or just do it twice?
It doesn't have a no
On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:35:35 +, Bob Archer wrote:
...
> Been a while since I have really got into the git internals, but I think each
> changeset has a SHA1 hash... if a changeset with that hash is already in a
> branch merging won't do anything... there will be nothing to merge.
> That said
On 05/13/2013 03:04 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
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.
If you think my comments were about Git then you missed the point
entirely.
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
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Zé 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 n
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Zé wrote:
>>
> What has been said regarding
> subversions lack of support for branching was, I think, quite clear.
Well, no. The only thing you've made clear is that you don't like it
or you don't understand how it is supposed to be used. You have not
explained
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 11:05 AM
> To: Zé
> Cc: Subversion
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branches as First Class Objects?
>
>
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
>
>
> Isolating change is a fundamental tenet behind branching. The fact that an
> "outside" change can affect a branch (and a tagged baseline) is wrong by
> definition.
>
OK, but that means you need to anchor the concept of 'this branch'
On Wed, 15 May 2013 13:06:52 +, Andrew Reedick wrote:
...
> In the Future(tm), Subversion, IMHO, will need to treat branches (and tags)
> as first class objects because branches and tags are core concepts of modern
> version control systems.
So what? SVN decided to map them into the director
On 15.05.2013 19:06, Andrew Reedick wrote:
> Isolating change is a fundamental tenet behind branching. The fact that an
> "outside" change can affect a branch (and a tagged baseline) is wrong by
> definition.
I suspect this discussion has strayed somewhat from the mandate of this
list ... so le
On 05/15/2013 04:04 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Zé wrote:
What has been said regarding
subversions lack of support for branching was, I think, quite clear.
Well, no. The only thing you've made clear is that you don't like it
or you don't understand how it is su
On 05/15/2013 06:59 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
Plus, telling people not use to svn's touted directory manipulation
features because of side-effects is a bit self-defeating.
Not if you want it to act like SCM's that have branches that don'
On 5/18/2013 9:37 AM, Zé wrote:
On 05/15/2013 06:59 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
Plus, telling people not use to svn's touted directory manipulation
features because of side-effects is a bit self-defeating.
Not if you want it to act like S
On 05/18/2013 07:16 PM, David Chapman wrote:
You are pretty insistent that there is One True Way to use branches in
development.
No, I'm stating that if all a SCM does is track changes made to the
contents of a directory and you rely on changes made to that directory
to emulate branches, the
On 5/18/2013 12:01 PM, Zé wrote:
On 05/18/2013 07:16 PM, David Chapman wrote:
You are pretty insistent that there is One True Way to use branches in
development.
No, I'm stating that if all a SCM does is track changes made to the
contents of a directory and you rely on changes made to that d
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 9:33 PM, David Chapman wrote:
> On 5/18/2013 12:01 PM, Zé wrote:
>>
>> On 05/18/2013 07:16 PM, David Chapman wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> You are pretty insistent that there is One True Way to use branches in
>>> development.
>>
>>
>> No, I'm stating that if all a SCM does is track c
On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:33:10 +, Thorsten Schöning wrote:
...
> That's not an argument at all, because all one does in other SCMs is
> creating branches and tags. What you really should argue is what all
> devs think is common sense about branches and tags
You mean like 'I expect tags to be imm
On Sat, 18 May 2013 19:33:10 +, Thorsten Schöning wrote:
> Guten Tag Zé,
> am Samstag, 18. Mai 2013 um 18:24 schrieben Sie:
>
> > The only difference between subversion and other SCM systems
> > is that other systems offer support for labeling and adding useful info
> > to those revisions, whi
On Sat, 18 May 2013 17:24:33 +, Zé wrote:
...
> Compared to how other SCM systems handle tags, subversion also doesn't
> have tags as a separate concept. Subversion provides a way to pinpoint
> each commit objectively and unambiguously by specifying specific
> revisions.
Not even that. You
On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:16:48 +, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
...
> Please be concrete, and give examples of what really bothers you as a
> user or an admin in your daily work. Saying that "branches are not
> first class", or "I don't like it that Subversion implements
> branches/tags by copying direc
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andreas Krey wrote:
> On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:16:48 +, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> ...
>> Please be concrete, and give examples of what really bothers you as a
>> user or an admin in your daily work. Saying that "branches are not
>> first class", or "I don't like
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Sat, May 18, 2013 at 23:38:11 +0200:
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andreas Krey wrote:
> > The good old "'svn commit file; svn log' doesn't show the commit to
> > file" issue?
>
> Sorry? What issue is that?
>
This one is actually in the FAQ. It's inherent to how
Johan Corveleyn wrote on Sat, May 18, 2013 at 23:38:11 +0200:
> On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 11:15 PM, Andreas Krey wrote:
> > On Sat, 18 May 2013 22:16:48 +, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > ...
> >> Please be concrete, and give examples of what really bothers you as a
> >> user or an admin in your dail
On 05/18/2013 08:33 PM, David Chapman wrote:
On 5/18/2013 12:01 PM, Zé wrote:
On 05/18/2013 07:16 PM, David Chapman wrote:
You are pretty insistent that there is One True Way to use branches in
development.
No, I'm stating that if all a SCM does is track changes made to the
contents of a dir
On May 19, 2013, at 3:20, Zé wrote:
> You are confused. This discussion is about how subversion lacks any support
> for branching, which is quite obvious to anyone who understands and
> acknowledges that all subversion does is track revision changes to a file
> system.
I use branches in SVN
On 05/18/2013 09:16 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
So what's the actual problem (or problems) with SVN's branching and
tagging? Where does it hurt your workflow? What would make SVN not
"hurt you" in that way?
Please be concrete, and give examples of what really bothers you as a
user or an admin in
On 05/19/2013 09:33 AM, Dave Huang wrote:
I use branches in SVN all the time… you might take
Read the thread.
--
Zé
On 19.05.2013 10:51, Zé wrote:
> On 05/18/2013 09:16 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> So what's the actual problem (or problems) with SVN's branching and
>> tagging? Where does it hurt your workflow? What would make SVN not
>> "hurt you" in that way?
>>
>> Please be concrete, and give examples of what
On 05/19/2013 09:51 AM, Zé wrote:
Again, the problem is that subversion does not support branches or tags.
All it supports is basic file operations on a file system, and they
are not adequate for simulating branches or tags.
Regarding tags, there's a better way to handle them in subversion:
On 05/19/2013 10:01 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
If Subversion
does not support your workflow, then replace Subversion, or change your
workflow.
Did you even browsed the thread? This whole thread is on how subversion
does not support branching, and how subversion would be even better than
what it
On 19.05.2013 11:08, Zé wrote:
> On 05/19/2013 09:51 AM, Zé wrote:
>>
>> Again, the problem is that subversion does not support branches or tags.
>> All it supports is basic file operations on a file system, and they
>> are not adequate for simulating branches or tags.
>
> Regarding tags, there's
Guten Tag Zé,
am Sonntag, 19. Mai 2013 um 10:20 schrieben Sie:
> You are confused. This discussion is about how subversion lacks any
> support for branching, which is quite obvious to anyone who understands
> and acknowledges that all subversion does is track revision changes to a
> file system.[
On 19.05.2013 11:16, Zé wrote:
> On 05/19/2013 10:01 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> If Subversion
>> does not support your workflow, then replace Subversion, or change your
>> workflow.
>
> Did you even browsed the thread? This whole thread is on how
> subversion does not support branching, and how su
Guten Tag Zé,
am Sonntag, 19. Mai 2013 um 10:51 schrieben Sie:
> 7) This is the problem:
[...]
This was surely not the problem, the thread started because of
changed revision numbers, you seem to be the only who wants to remove
history of changes.
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thorsten Schöning
--
Guten Tag Andreas Krey,
am Samstag, 18. Mai 2013 um 22:41 schrieben Sie:
> You mean like 'I expect tags to be immutable out of the box, and have
> the VCS not modify them with perfectly normal operations, at least not
> without adding -f or something to them'?
This sounds like Subversion technica
Guten Tag Andreas Krey,
am Samstag, 18. Mai 2013 um 22:55 schrieben Sie:
> All that structure is implicit. Unless someone tells you, you
> have no ways to deduce which paths of a subversion repository
> are meaningful to check out and which aren't.
But that's nearly the same with any other SCMs w
On 19.05.2013 11:46, Thorsten Schöning wrote:
> Guten Tag Andreas Krey,
> am Samstag, 18. Mai 2013 um 22:55 schrieben Sie:
>
>> All that structure is implicit. Unless someone tells you, you
>> have no ways to deduce which paths of a subversion repository
>> are meaningful to check out and which are
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Zé wrote:
> On 05/18/2013 09:16 PM, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>>
>> So what's the actual problem (or problems) with SVN's branching and
>> tagging? Where does it hurt your workflow? What would make SVN not
>> "hurt you" in that way?
>>
>> Please be concrete, and give
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Zé wrote:
> On 05/18/2013 07:16 PM, David Chapman wrote:
>>
>>
>> You are pretty insistent that there is One True Way to use branches in
>> development.
>
>
> No, I'm stating that if all a SCM does is track changes made to the contents
> of a directory and you rely
On Sun, 19 May 2013 09:20:31 +, Zé wrote:
...
> file system. What you are insistingly referring to as branches is
> nothing more than a copy of a particular subdirectory (i.e., the trunk)
> into another subdirectory (i.e., branches), which is nothing more than a
> plain recursive directory
+1 on *plonk*.
I admit, I had fun reading and this is a perfect end to the thread.
Thank-yous to Stefan, Branko and the other contributors in the thread.
There was definitely learning involved on my side (I did not learn most from
Ze's replies)
"Let's just stop and think, before I lose face
S
> On 05/18/2013 08:33 PM, David Chapman wrote:
> > On 5/18/2013 12:01 PM, Zé wrote:
> >> On 05/18/2013 07:16 PM, David Chapman wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You are pretty insistent that there is One True Way to use branches
> >>> in development.
> >>
> >> No, I'm stating that if all a SCM does is track chang
> Guten Tag Zé,
> am Sonntag, 19. Mai 2013 um 10:20 schrieben Sie:
>
> > You are confused. This discussion is about how subversion lacks any
> > support for branching, which is quite obvious to anyone who
> > understands and acknowledges that all subversion does is track
> > revision changes to a
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bob Archer wrote:
>>>
>> You are confused. This discussion is about how subversion lacks any support
>> for
>> branching, which is quite obvious to anyone who understands and
>> acknowledges that all subversion does is track revision changes to a file
>> system.
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Archer [mailto:bob.arc...@amsi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 10:24 AM
> To: Zé; users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branches as First Class Objects?
>
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 9:23 AM, Bob Archer wrote:
> >>>
> >> You are confused. This discussion is about how subversion lacks any
> >> support for branching, which is quite obvious to anyone who
> >> understands and acknowledges that all subversion does is track revision
> changes to a file sys
> > .. snip
> >
> > You keep saying "svn doesn't support branches" yet I use branches
> > every day. While there is no way to "list branches" it would be
> > possible. I think the current implementation records the parent path
> > in the branch, but not vice versa... I assume svn doesn't do this
>
> Guten Tag Andreas Krey,
> am Samstag, 18. Mai 2013 um 22:41 schrieben Sie:
>
> > You mean like 'I expect tags to be immutable out of the box, and have
> > the VCS not modify them with perfectly normal operations, at least not
> > without adding -f or something to them'?
>
> This sounds like Sub
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2013 4:17 PM
> To: Zé
> Cc: users@subversion.apache.org; David Chapman
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branches as Fi
Guten Tag Bob Archer,
am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013 um 17:54 schrieben Sie:
> Frankly, if you are
> writing to tags it is more like a branch. ;)
Of course, that's why it's all about definitions or conventions and my
writable tags are customer installations of our software which get
updated to new ver
> -Original Message-
> From: Thorsten Schöning [mailto:tschoen...@am-soft.de]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 12:30 PM
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branches as First Class Objects?
&g
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Bob Archer wrote:
>>
>> > You mean like 'I expect tags to be immutable out of the box, and have
>> > the VCS not modify them with perfectly normal operations, at least not
>> > without adding -f or something to them'?
>>
>> This sounds like Subversion technically
> > So what's the actual problem (or problems) with SVN's branching and
> > tagging? Where does it hurt your workflow? What would make SVN not
> > "hurt you" in that way?
> >
> > Please be concrete, and give examples of what really bothers you as a
> > user or an admin in your daily work. Saying th
> -Original Message-
> From: Bob Archer [mailto:bob.arc...@amsi.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 1:24 PM
> To: Andrew Reedick; Johan Corveleyn
> Cc: users@subversion.apache.org; David Chapman
> Subject: RE: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the St
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 11:41 AM
> To: Bob Archer
> Cc: Zé; users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branc
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
>
>> What do you mean by "spurious" log entries? When I look at the log (at
>> least in the tsvn log viewer) I only see revisions that have changes on
>> that path. I don't see every revision number unless I go to the project
>> root path or
On 21.05.2013 19:50, Andrew Reedick wrote:
> Ooops. All of your immutable, static, locked down, haven't been touched in
> months tags now have a new revision, and they all share that revision in
> common. The parent dir change from "/tags" to "/project1/tags" is visible
> under the tag1, tag2,
On 21.05.2013 20:26, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 21.05.2013 19:50, Andrew Reedick wrote:
>> Ooops. All of your immutable, static, locked down, haven't been touched in
>> months tags now have a new revision, and they all share that revision in
>> common. The parent dir change from "/tags" to "/proj
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 1:13 PM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
>
> Right, right, it's the user's fault for failing to predict future "namespace"
> needs. That the repository was created when the project was small and that
> the user in question inherited the repo aren't valid excuses either.
Your bigg
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:33 PM
> To: Andrew Reedick
> Cc: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branc
> -Original Message-
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 2:32 PM
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branches as First Class Objects?
>
>
On 21.05.2013 21:27, Andrew Reedick wrote:
> Anyway, I'm nearly done with implementing my "find common ancestor"
> script that seems resistant to edge conditions, so I'll stop rambling.
Ah ... if that's what started the whole thread ... have you considered
that the Subversion libraries already ha
> -Original Message-
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:36 PM
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> aka Branches as First Class Objects?
>
>
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:27 PM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
>
> I don't think true renames will necessarily fix the problem. Conceptually,
> the problem is that the parent dir components of a branch/tag are
> superfluous, e.g. given "svn://server/repo/path/to/project1/branches/1.0",
> the "svn://se
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:53 PM
> To: Andrew Reedick
> Cc: Branko Čibej; users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn't Have Branches aka Crossing the Streams
> a
> From: Andrew Reedick
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2013 3:53 PM
>> To: Andrew Reedick
>> Cc: Branko Čibej; users@subversion.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Subversion Doesn&#
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
>
> We'll have to agree to disagree. We're back at the low level "managing dirs"
> versus high-level "managing baselines" arguments/thinking/paradigms.
>
We're not completely opposed here. I can see the value of being able
to note the 'top
Guten Tag Andrew Reedick,
am Dienstag, 21. Mai 2013 um 21:27 schrieben Sie:
> It's about presentation. Keep the superfluous dir components
> internal and hidden from the average user.
Clearly a -1/dislike from me. :-)
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Thorsten Schöning
--
Thorsten Schöning E-Ma
Les Mikesell wrote on Tue, May 21, 2013 at 16:04:59 -0500:
> In any case, if you have ever published/announced a URL to your branch
> to the group that will use it, you have a bigger problem than with the
> tool itself if you change that location after the fact. Rather than
> trying to change hist
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Les Mikesell wrote on Tue, May 21, 2013 at 16:04:59 -0500:
>> In any case, if you have ever published/announced a URL to your branch
>> to the group that will use it, you have a bigger problem than with the
>> tool itself if you change that l
Les Mikesell wrote on Tue, May 21, 2013 at 16:40:40 -0500:
> On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 4:19 PM, Daniel Shahaf
> wrote:
> > Les Mikesell wrote on Tue, May 21, 2013 at 16:04:59 -0500:
> >> In any case, if you have ever published/announced a URL to your branch
> >> to the group that will use it, you h
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 03:20:37PM -0400, Andrew Reedick wrote:
> Metadata could work. A "svn mkbranch" command that would run "svn
> copy" plus "svn propset" indicating that this is a branch root.
More than a week ago, this exact idea was already mentioned:
http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2013-
1 - 100 of 110 matches
Mail list logo
