You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> on 2003/11/03 21:23:26 UTC
Re: Subversion history: Why was/is tagging/branching implemented
as copy?
[moving to the dev list, as it more properly belongs there]
kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>We tried to think of an important difference between tags/branches and
>copies, and couldn't, so we just decided to implement them as copies
>and make it user-visible.
>
>
Actually, I _have_ thought of an important (to me, that is) difference
between branches and copies, and I brought it up a few times, but it can
wait until post-1.0. A difference that would incidentally make history
traversing much easier, especially in non-BDB backends -- but it would
mean a change in the database schema. :-)
Re: Subversion history: Why was/is tagging/branching implemented
as copy?
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
C. Michael Pilato wrote:
>Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
>
>
>
>>[moving to the dev list, as it more properly belongs there]
>>
>>kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>We tried to think of an important difference between tags/branches and
>>>copies, and couldn't, so we just decided to implement them as copies
>>>and make it user-visible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Actually, I _have_ thought of an important (to me, that is) difference
>>between branches and copies, and I brought it up a few times, but it can
>>wait until post-1.0. A difference that would incidentally make history
>>traversing much easier, especially in non-BDB backends -- but it would
>>mean a change in the database schema. :-)
>>
>>
>
>Speak now -- you may just get your chance to change the schema one
>last time before 1.0...
>
>
Oh, no. For one thing, I don't have it entirely thought out myself. For
another, the schema change will probably not be minor (it should address
some inherent performance problems), so it's more likeli in svn-2.0
rather than svn-1.1.
/me fidgets, resisting the temptation
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: Subversion history: Why was/is tagging/branching implemented as copy?
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
> [moving to the dev list, as it more properly belongs there]
>
> kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>
> >We tried to think of an important difference between tags/branches and
> >copies, and couldn't, so we just decided to implement them as copies
> >and make it user-visible.
> >
> >
> Actually, I _have_ thought of an important (to me, that is) difference
> between branches and copies, and I brought it up a few times, but it can
> wait until post-1.0. A difference that would incidentally make history
> traversing much easier, especially in non-BDB backends -- but it would
> mean a change in the database schema. :-)
Speak now -- you may just get your chance to change the schema one
last time before 1.0...
-- Mike, enslaved by libsvn_fs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org