On May 14, 2016, at 4:35 AM, Stephan Beal <sgb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > But in svn, now that i think about it, cp is, in practice, only used for > branching.
No, not “only.” For example, I have a small repo containing a bunch of test programs. They’re all very similar, sharing perhaps 80-90% of their code, but they’re so small that it isn’t worth factoring all of that out into a utility library that they all share. Back when I would create a new one under svn, I could svn cp the existing test program that is most similar to what I need the new one to do, then make the few changes I needed and check that back in. This preserves the inherited history of the program, even though the program I cloned may go on to receive more changes, so that its history diverges from the new one after the cp point. Each such program I’ve created since switching to Fossil now has an independent development history, implying that I created each one de novo. I might as well keep them in separate repositories for all that Fossil is remembering for me here. > i've never seen it used to copy something within the same tree. I’ve done that on individual files, too. If the SCM doesn’t remember that y.cpp was cloned from x.cpp, *I* have to, so that if I say “f finfo y.cpp” I must then also say “f finfo x.cpp” to get the rest of the history of the file. > That would require a backwards-incompatible change to the manifest format Fossil 2? _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
