On Sun, 22 Apr 2007 21:03:02 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > Hi, > > On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 07:40:30PM +0200, Jean Delvare wrote: > > > But you do get a marker for copies or merges that you can follow to > > > fork off A's history into B's. > > > > True, but that's hardly convenient if merges are frequent and/or if the > > number of branches is important. I start understanding why people > > working with many branches don't even consider Subversion. > > Well, git was written with merges as the first priority, as the kernel > is being cloned and developed as several places > simultaneously. mercurial has also better merge support. > > I just stumbled over the following (which is why I'm replying to this > old mail): > > http://subversion.tigris.org/merge-tracking/ > http://www.orcaware.com/svn/wiki/Svnmerge.py > > E.g. svn will one day have the support you need, but you need it > today. :( I don't think we can see we _need_ it. If it was there, we'd use it. It's not, we'll do without it, no big deal. We'll simply go with the parallel commit proposal I made a few days ago, and that will be fine. -- Jean Delvare
