On 10 January 2011 15:12, Derek Atkins <warl...@mit.edu> wrote: > Geert Janssens <janssens-ge...@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. > However, I do agree with you about tags. > > IMHO branches and tags are (and should be) fundamentally different. A > branch should be a path, but a tag is, well, a tag. I believe they *are* different in git, at least in terms of the normal usage via the git commands and utilities. Colin _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel