Public Git repo

[Colin Law]

On 10 January 2011 15:48, Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu> wrote:
> Colin Law <clanlaw at googlemail.com> writes:
>
>> On 10 January 2011 15:12, Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu> wrote:
>>> Geert Janssens <janssens-geert at telenet.be> writes:
>>>
>>>> On Wednesday 05 January 2011, Jeff Kletsky wrote:
>>>>> I don't like that history is a pretty flexible thing and that "branches"
>>>>> are just pointers to specific commits, rather than the kind of
>>>>> "followable path" that svn provides.
>>>>>
>>>> That's interesting, because I feel exactly the oposite. I don't like it that
>>>> for svn a branch or tag is a path into the repository. It has always felt
>>>> artificial to me and if not treated with proper care could put you into very
>>>> unwanted situations like people inadvertently committing changes to a tagged
>>>> release.
>>>> I guess this is mostly a matter of taste and what you are most used to
>>>> though...
>>>
>>> I like that branches are paths, because you DO want to be able to make
>>> additional commits into a branch.  So I don't agree with you there.
>>
>> I am not sure what you are suggesting here.  Using git there is no
>> problem committing to a branch, just checkout the branch, make the
>> changes, and commit.  The changes go onto the branch.
>
> We're not talking about git; we're talking about svn.

Sorry, I thought you were comparing the two and saying that the way
svn handles branches is better than the way git does it.

Colin L.