On Feb 6, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Daniel Frey wrote:
Martin Slater wrote:
Can anyone comment on whether the branching has got better in svn? In particular (Quoting from http://www.gamesfromwithin.com/articles/0407/000026.html) <quote> Here's the real killer blow for me: Subversion doesn't keep track of what merges have been applied to a file. That's up to you to keep track of somehow. That means that for every file (or set of files), you have to know up to what revision they've been integrated, and only pull in the changes from that revision on. [...Double quote deleted...] </quote> This appears to be very limiting if you rely heavily on branching.
Is that any worse than the current situation with CVS? If not, it's not a problem IMHO.
It's exactly the way CVS works. Without clear and consistent naming of tags, tags used for branchpoints and branches, both CVS and Subversion will disappoint. Since SVN is the same as CVS in this regard I do not see this as a problem either. - Michael
Regards, Daniel
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost