On Tue, 2005-08-23 at 11:43 -0500, Bob Jamison wrote:
The most common practice that I've seen so far is to do an 'svn copy' of the tree to another name. That copy -is- the snapshot of the tree at that given date and revision number......
I'm well aware of how tagging/branching works in SVN (that is what the SVN documentation terms such a use of 'svn copy'). The trouble is that it's just a snapshot of the tree; you can't use it as a mnemonic for a particular revision.
I'd rather be able to create meaningful names for revisions rather than have to dig through svn logs looking for the right numbers. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if SVN didn't force you to explicitly specify revisions so much.
CVS:
cvs update -j HEAD
SVN:
svn log --verbose http://svn.inkscape.org/repos/inkscape/trunk | grep '^r' | head # note topmost version number in log (we'll call it 402)
svn log --verbose --stop-on-copy http://svn.inkscape.org/repos/inkscape/branches/mybranch | grep '^r' | tail # note bottommost version number in log (we'll call it 332)
svn merge -r 332:402 http://svn.inkscape.org/repos/inkscape/trunk
Note that the SVN equivalent only works for first-order branches from HEAD. Merging from the trunk to a second-order or higher branch is even more complex.
Much better than tagging, IMHO.
...if the only thing you'd been using tags for is creating tree snapshots.
Admittedly, maybe nobody else here uses branches.
-mental