On Jan 11, 2016, at 11:21 AM, Ross Berteig <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 1/11/2016 10:09 AM, Warren Young wrote:
>>
>> What use case exists where you *want* to create a new branch but not
>> switch to it immediately?
>
> Back when we used SVN, we had the practice of pro-actively creating a branch
> for bug fixes of each release, which came about from one of the books or
> whitepapers on "best practices" with SVN at the time.
In Fossil, tags work better for this:
f up v1.2.3
…hack, hack, hack…
…test…
f ci --branch v1.2.3.1
Subversion can do the same thing, because just as in Fossil, tags and branches
are nearly the same thing. The only difference is that standard Subversion
practice (i.e. the trunk,tags,branches repo organization scheme) discourages
cloning a tag as a branch:
svn copy file:///path/to/repo/tags/v1.2.3 \
file:///path/to/repo/branch/v1.2.3.1 \
-m "creating v1.2.3.1 bugfix branch"
I’ve never seen that suggested anywhere, but you could do it.
Subversion would even let you check in directly on a “tag,” since unlike
Fossil, it doesn’t try to do things like Fossil’s non-propagating tags.
That very flexibility is part of what dooms Subversion branches from the start,
though: they’re so loosely defined that the tool allows you to create some
frightening messes. Fossil at least guides you toward good practices.
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
