Wait, I'm not quite timed out yet after all :-). Greg Hudson has
presented the best use case yet -- and one which I've actually
experienced, in CVS, with semi-separable projects that happen to share
the same repository.
Greg Stein, this seems to me to make a real difference in what the
user can do. Thoughts?
Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> I think I do, actually. If I have an interrelated change which
> affects both neon and mod_dav, then:
>
> * If they are in the same repository, I should commit them at
> the same time, with a log message which documents all of
> the changes. The change will be treated by Subversion as a
> single commit.
>
> * If they are not in the same repository, I should commit them
> separately, with a log message for each which documents the
> changes in each and merely mentions that there is a
> corresponding change in the other project. The change will
> be treated by Subversion as two commits (with different
> commit numbers), one in each repository.
>
> > There is no simple syntactic marker that you can place into a URL to
> > separate the pieces, and still retain the ability to surf through
> > them (for example, say we put the repos path after a "?" mark; that
> > would blow away surfing thru the repos).
>
> I'm (genuinely) unclear on what the "surfing" operation is and what
> requirements it imposes on the form of URLs. Unless you just mean
> what you wrote below:
>
> > Consider my www.lyra.org web site. I want to put the whole bugger
> > under version control. I don't want users to surf my site using URLs
> > like:
>
> > http://www.lyra.org/$sys/greg/index.html
>
> > I want them to use http://www.lyra.org/greg/index.html.
>
> A valid point, though maybe outside of our core functionality. I'm
> not sure whether I think it's compelling, or whether it would be
> better to say that the user-visible web site needs to be a "view" into
> the repository rather than the repository itself as presented by
> Subversion.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:22 2006