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

Re: Noninvasive administrative areas (.svn)

From: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_collab.net>
Date: 2003-12-01 04:15:18 CET

On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 19:27, David Waite wrote:
> The reason CVS and Subversion both have per-directory working copy
> administrative areas is that it is the best way known to track changes
> made with filesystem commands like mv and rm. Most straw-man 'central
> repository' ideas do not cope well or at all with multiple users
> working against a single working copy, moving the working copy to a
> different location, copying a working copy whole, or removing a working
> copy.
>

The other reason we chose the CVS model was portability... just pick up
your working copy and move it to another machine. Or, pick up just a
subsection of your working copy... any subdirectory can survive as a
standalone working copy. Most of the developers consider this a
feature, not a bug, so we deliberately imitated CVS. Sorry that you
feel otherwise, Stuart.

> I imagine people will start
> to attack the problem of allowing the working copy implementation to be
> switched for the 1.1 timeframe

As David said, yes, in post-1.0 subversion, people will be working on
making the .svn/ directories optional, allowing them to live outside the
working tree. It's definitely important to a small, vocal minority, and
has been brought up before.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 1 04:15:56 2003

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