- From: Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:25:42 -0700
- To: "Clemm, Geoff" <gclemm@rational.com>
- Cc: ietf-dav-versioning@w3.org
On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 09:50:50AM -0400, Clemm, Geoff wrote: > Greg: If you split your "commit" into an activity "CHECKIN" > followed by a baseline "MERGE", I believe you would have the > right framework for doing branching (in particular, We use cheap copies, not branching. > a branch is just a CHECKIN that is not followed by a MERGE). > This would have CHECKIN of an activity create a new > subversion revision (aka a DeltaV baseline), but this revision > wouldn't become the "current" one until you did the MERGE. Not supported. > If so, I believe this would then remove your need for > having CHECKIN be a side effect of MERGE. But this of course > works only if subversion allows a new revision to be created that > does not immediately become the current revision. But don't > you have to do that to support branching? Effectively, we do: $ svn cp /trunk /branches/gstein-work Hmm. I just realized that the original question made it seem like some weird side effect. But in the case under discussion, you're doing a MERGE on an *activity*. Thus, it makes perfect sense to take all resources contained in that activity as the merge source. Cheers, -g -- Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 16:22:12 UTC