Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2006 17:48:35 +0000 From: Alec Berryman <alec@thened.net> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base) Message-ID: <20060304174835.GA58184@thened.net> In-Reply-To: <BA422F74-E7F9-4F53-9A88-B89E2255FF00@behanna.org> References: <20060304141957.14716.qmail@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060304152433.W61086@fledge.watson.org> <BA422F74-E7F9-4F53-9A88-B89E2255FF00@behanna.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Chris BeHanna on 2006-03-04 12:11:24 -0500: > And, as I recall, at the time, subversion's ability to manage =20 > branches in a lightweight fashion was just not there. >=20 > How is it now? If it still cannot compare to Perforce, then it's =20 > likely a non-starter. =46rom subversion.tigris.org: "Branching and tagging are cheap (constant time) operations. There is no reason for these operations to be expensive, so they aren't. Branches and tags are both implemented in terms of an underlying "copy" operation. A copy takes up a small, constant amount of space. Any copy is a tag; and if you start committing on a copy, then it's a branch as well. (This does away with CVS's "branch-point tagging", by removing the distinction that made branch-point tags necessary in the first place.)" --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFECdLzAud/2YgchcQRAtRsAJwOIMuj/FSTiqltz3B+VQYG4LXrnwCgwu+F X76XchGzQEqtLw0+iwFoavU= =+guD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --4Ckj6UjgE2iN1+kY--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060304174835.GA58184>