From: Avery Pennarun <apenwarr@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2008 22:07:36 GMT
Subject: Re: Subversion's do-everything-via-copying paradigm ( was RE: Re: Considering teaching plumbing to users harmful)
Message-ID: <32541b130807171507j98f883by2e937e894838852@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <63BEA5E623E09F4D92233FB12A9F79430238A16B@emailmn.mqsoftware.com>

On 7/17/08, Craig L. Ching <cching@mqsoftware.com> wrote:
>  Does it not bother you that renaming a file is a copy + delete [1].
>  Have they fixed that yet?  That was one of the biggest reasons we never
>  moved to subversion.

Perhaps you've confused CVS with subversion.

svn's handilng of renames is not as graceful as git's, but it does
work in the common cases.  For example, after the aforementioned
copy+delete, "svn blame" and "svn log" will still follow history back
through the rename.

Not sure how I ended up defending subversion on this list.  Somehow
I've been tricked into being on the losing side of this argument :)  I
guess I just wanted to balance the viewpoints a little; there are good
things to be learned from svn, but not things about branching,
merging, or rename tracking.

Have fun,

Avery