From users-return-9622-apmail-subversion-users-archive=subversion.apache.org@subversion.apache.org Fri Jul 1 13:09:36 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 609F645CB for ; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 13:09:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 78436 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2011 13:09:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-subversion-users-archive@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 78390 invoked by uid 500); 1 Jul 2011 13:09:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 78379 invoked by uid 99); 1 Jul 2011 13:09:34 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:09:34 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of nkadel@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.171 as permitted sender) Received: from [74.125.83.171] (HELO mail-pv0-f171.google.com) (74.125.83.171) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 13:09:29 +0000 Received: by pva4 with SMTP id 4so3939583pva.16 for ; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 06:09:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=CxyYnCEFwr/4WW3ZySL5luqwGHkujpyA3lezaYJY8Ik=; b=QAe16rxKvWps96wi8WxYQGLQbIDuCf7GvwTwKRIOrNqANJzlF8gyLlnYocPQ5/B7lR 61P4eOdRXffzXfRNcOTrH7Q2r9xEZemuF1HbJ2NLDd1/1ocLs8NA3gpippMDaqgRD3w/ YuR62jlDftspdWRyP12087dFRTaLf7N1R713k= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.68.32.101 with SMTP id h5mr3787611pbi.158.1309525747309; Fri, 01 Jul 2011 06:09:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.68.65.198 with HTTP; Fri, 1 Jul 2011 06:09:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 09:09:07 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: branch question From: Nico Kadel-Garcia To: Geoff Hoffman Cc: users@subversion.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Geoff Hoffman wrote: > What I mean by that is, it may have ramifications down the road for *your > workflow* (I can't think of any obvious examples), but svn copy [from] [to] > works on any path, local or remote, as you would expect. > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:57 PM, Geoff Hoffman > wrote: >> >> Not in any general sense, no. >> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Phil Pinkerton >> wrote: >>> >>> Any issues with creating a branch from a branch? no trunk and no merge >>> back to first branch ? >>> >>> >>> Phil Oh, lord, top-posting. I just ran into a long rant about this on another list. One subtle booby trap that I *just* found out about, if you do something like this to internally "branch" your work and then delete the original material as part of a "how do I move this material to a better location in the source tree", rather than doing an "svn move", you break git-svn history of that internal "branch". Personally, I'm not put out by it: I see git-svn as a friendly portal for distributed work, not a primary access to subversion repository history, but it was profoundly irksome to people who believe that sacrosanct history is one of the whole points of a repository history, and I can understand that view.