MenTaLguY wrote:
On Mon, 2005-08-22 at 19:36 -0700, Jon Phillips wrote:
Unfortunately, we are coming to the limits of using sf.net. We need to start thinking about where to move our project, as it is getting quite large and sf.net is too slow, not reliable for real world web-based needs, and we want svn.
I'm experiencing some reservations about SVN, actually. A lot of people have been complaining about branching/tagging/merging in it. Looking into the complaints, a lot of them are really of the "it doesn't work like I'm used to" variety.
However, it does appear to have one really big deficiency -- there's no way to assign a symbolic name to a particular revision number. At all. What they call "tags" are just snapshots whose names you can use for a checkout, but can't specify to SVN in place of revision numbers.
The SVN documentation I've read so far _actually proposes_ grovelling through commit logs _by hand_ to get revision numbers for "tags"... want to merge two branches? You've got to diddle with the log to find the common ancestor revision yourself.
I mean, wow.
-mental
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...... since everything in SVN is a database of diffs. And since it is diffs, it doesn't take up any extra disk space on the server, so you can do it as often as desired.
Much better than tagging, IMHO.
Bob