Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 20:40:30 +0100 From: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base) Message-ID: <20060304194030.GA2826@tara.freenix.org> In-Reply-To: <20060304174835.GA58184@thened.net> References: <20060304141957.14716.qmail@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060304152433.W61086@fledge.watson.org> <BA422F74-E7F9-4F53-9A88-B89E2255FF00@behanna.org> <20060304174835.GA58184@thened.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
According to Alec Berryman: > 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.)" But you don't know when (time or changeset based) you did branch something. This is bad IMO. -- Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto@keltia.freenix.fr Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.9.0: Wed Mar 30 20:11:17 PST 2005
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060304194030.GA2826>