On 8/10/06, Daniel John Debrunner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm getting (more?) confused now. I thought that the approach Andrew brought up of the svn copy, followed by modifying the beta bit in that branch would leave a svn history with a unique svn revision number. I was assuming the flip the bit was committed back to the branch. Or is a copy not a branch?
This is correct. In svn a copy == a branch == a tag. With the approach I'm suggesting, what goes out as beta would be fully represented by a source tree in svn. The copy and the flipping of the bit and such would all be done and committed to a source tree in the tags subdirectory of derby/code, copied from the trunk, and what goes out would not be modified in any way from the a specific revision of the tags/10.0.2.1_beta subdirectory. I think there's some confusion over the fact that in svn, copy == branch (== tag). andrew
