[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

[BOOK] comparing with 'cvs update'

From: Johan Holmberg <holmberg_at_iar.se>
Date: 2004-03-30 18:42:45 CEST

Hi !

I just printed out the latest version of the book at
svnbook.red-bean.com. I looked up some sections talking about 'cvs
update' and Subversions corresponding commands ('update' and
'status'). Isn't the CVS command described as worse than it
actually is?

'cvs -n update' is not mentionend. Instead the text says (page 25,
my emphasis):

  You're probably used to using cvs update to see what changes
  you've made to your working copy. svn status will give you all the
  information you need regarding what has changed in your working
  copy -- without accessing the repository or **potentially
  incorporating new changes** published by other users.

and on page 242:

  ... Instead, they've developed a habit of running cvs up to
  quickly see their mods. Of course, this has the **side effect of
  merging repository changes** that you may not be ready to deal
  with!

I think I understand the purpose of the text: to point out the
better separation of functionality between 'status' and 'update'.
But I think the comparison would be more "fair" if 'cvs -n update'
was mentioned. As an old CVS-user I regularly use 'cvs -n update'
just to avoid the copying, and was confused to see no mention of
that in the text.

Thanks for a great piece of software,

/Johan Holmberg

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 30 18:45:37 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.