Tags

[Benno]

On Wed Apr 20, 2005 at 16:38:07 +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 10:45 -0700, John Corpening wrote:
>> Hello,
>> 
>> We use CVS at work to do version control. We considered subversion but decided not to use it for a number of reasons. I was not in the group that reviewed subversion but one big problem that I can see with it is how it handles branches and tags. 
>> 
>> We very often use CVS tags to mark the state of our project at certain key times (most often for our milestone deliverables). Our projects are usually too large for any one person to have more than one copy of it on their machine at a time. This is due in large part to the art assets that we have (we make video games). 
>
>How large are your files and whole trees?
>
>> Also, since subversion allows you to make check-ins to what they call a "tag" (i.e. a copy) it is hard to guarantee that the repository is in the state it was in when we tagged it. (Artists have an uncanny knack for not following directions and we have had to take measures to ensure that they don't make check-ins after a lock-down. CVS makes that easy subversion does not).
>
>People can move tags on CVS and you can limit commits to a branch in
>Subversion, so I don't think it's black and white.
>
>> In a nutshell I'm trying to say that CVS style tags are not "crack" (as your documentation fears). 
>
>What the documentation is getting at is that you can get the same
>outcome by having a branch to which only selected people can commit,
>without needing to introduce a separate concept of a tag.  

And of course, arch has a "sealed" option, which will stop you from 
committing to a branch accidently. I think this is a really good
feature and should be used. I've got patches for this, but they are
based on 2-week old code, so I'll need to update before pushing them.

Benno