Boost logo

Boost :

From: Michael van der Westhuizen (michael_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-06 06:45:05

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
>> <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:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at