On Friday 18 February 2005 7:47, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> On Friday 18 February 2005 20:32, Charles Samuels wrote:
> > As an aside, I think the "a branch is just a copy into another directory"
> > is a silly method.  You could have O(1) branching with a cvs-style
> > branch-tag, and the svn developers chose not to.  I really don't like
> > that.
>
> You never branched with CVS it seems, otherwise you would not say
> such silly things. A copy within subversion is a cheap operation, a branch
> in cvs is one of the most expensive operations.

You misunderstand me,

I never said that CVS branching was O(1). I said that you effectively "copy a 
directory" in subversion to make a branch (how efficient its implemention is 
is immaterial).  I'm saying the concept of copying a directory to elsewhere 
is what I don't like, and they could very well use cvs-style tags, and still 
achieve O(1).

I suspect Scott misunderstood me as well, or he made a typo somewhere.
-Charles