RE: Re: FW: [DESIGN] Aliases?

(adding the dev list to the reply, since I gathered that at least a =
portion of the discussion is happening there.)

Saulius Grazulis wrote:
> On Monday 27 February 2006 03:12, you wrote:
>> Personally, I think that it was a stroke of genius to realise that
>> the filesystem can already capture most of the information you're
>> interested in
>=20
> Agreed :)
>=20
>> (collections of interesting elements mainly). =A0The
>> Subversion guys have added finer grained information and efficiency
>> on top of that, end of story.
>=20
> In my view, (mis)using of directories for taging version is a
> deviation from this brilliant concept of "filesystem with history".
> This adds a special directories that are meningless for the project
> (i.e. tags/), but which must be present in order to get tag
> functionality somehow.=20

I have to say, my complaint is that people advocating the =
"trunk/tags/branches" structure are advocating using paths to store =
revision information, which is nonsensical to me.

Having current development code in trunk makes sense--it's a specific =
location in the directory structure, proceding forwards through time.  =
Similarly, branches are copies of specific locations, which exist for =
some (unspecified) period of time.  Tags, by definition, however, are =
supposed to be "snapshots" of at least a portion of the repository at a =
specific moment in time, and are not supposed to be mutable.  Tags are =
inherently different from branches, and ought to be treated as such.

Trunk and branches are paths for development, and it makes sense for =
them to be treated as such.  Tags, however, are not--and so they should =
not be.  Seems simple enough to me.

-David