Re: Subversion history: Why was/is tagging/branching implemented as copy?

[Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@collab.net>]

> How do you see this topic? Is it just my personal problem,
> my biasing towards concepts I have grown with (ClearCase-user)?
> Or, are native tags really a concept that Subversion lacks?

I think you're stuck in cvs-land.  A branch/tag is a line of
development.  But "line of development" is a pretty vague concept.  If
anything, I can make an argument that cvs's implementation of
branches/tags is *less* intuitive than subversion's.

For example, when I tried to explain cvs branching to my wife (who is
not a techie), she got a bit confused.  When I explained the subversion
paradigm ("just make a copy"), she understood completely.

When people don't have version control systems, "making copies" is the
natural behavior for maintaining two branches of a document.

So what you're seeing here isn't an accidental screw up:  "oops, we
exposed the implementation."  It's a deliberate design choice.  We're
presenting a specific paradigm to users.

(Now the fact that svn tree-copies take up almost no disk space --
*that's* an implementation detail.  :-)  )




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org