Thanks Ray - I actually deleted my message right after posting because I realized that it's all the same, as you pointed out. It was one of those 'duh, I knew that moments.' You must have already clicked reply though :)
I did perform a quick test to verify, and yes, the histories are retained when copying within the WC followed by a commit (though Versions won't show the history until you commit the change). Personally though, I prefer doing my tag/branching directly in the repository. Something about it just makes me feel "safer" when it comes to retaining file history. On Feb 13, 9:29 am, Ray <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 6:26 PM, kiddailey <[email protected]> wrote: > > Are you sure, Ray? When I option+drag to copy in the working copy I > > get an ADD entry in the transcript and I have to perform a commit, so > > it's definitely doesn't look like a cheap copy to me. > > From the svn book, it looks like the only difference between branching on > the WC and branching on the repository is the speed of the actual operation: > > While it's also possible to create a branch by using svn copy to duplicate a > > > directory within the working copy, this technique isn't recommended. It can > > be quite slow, in fact! Copying a directory on the client side is a > > linear-time operation, in that it actually has to duplicate every file and > > subdirectory on the local disk. Copying a directory on the server, however, > > is a constant-time operation, and it's the way most people create branches. > > and from svn ? copy: > > SRC and DST can each be either a working copy (WC) path or URL: > > WC -> WC: copy and schedule for addition (with history) > > WC -> URL: immediately commit a copy of WC to URL > > URL -> WC: check out URL into WC, schedule for addition > > URL -> URL: complete server-side copy; used to branch and tag > > All the SRCs must be of the same type. > > > > > WARNING: For compatibility with previous versions of Subversion, > > copies performed using two working copy paths (WC -> WC) will not > > contact the repository. As such, they may not, by default, be able > > to propagate merge tracking information from the source of the copy > > to the destination. > > > > Versions doesn't show you, but when you copy, the copied file carries a > history property with it, which tells the server where to make the cheap > copy in the repository. There's no such thing as a cheap copy in the > working copy since it's a real file system, but svn makes efforts to > optimize everything when it comes into the repository. > > What would be a not cheap copy is if you just copied files through your > Finder or with the regular cp command without svn knowing about it, so it > couldn't track where the file came from and make the cheap copy server-side. > > At least, this is how I always thought it worked based on what I've read. > Please correct me. > > -Ray --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
