On Jan 23, 2005, at 1:27 PM, Carole E Mah wrote:
> >
> > I'm thinking we should just stick with RCS until Subversion makes more
> > sense.
I agree. If my RCS has not stopped working I would still be using it
BTW Subversion also does not work as a server on Win98 which is almost a
show stopper for me and is not advised as such
on the downloads page (only a note in FAQ found after 2 days of funny
locking problems and a few list emails)
> With Subversion, the working model is very different. Everyone
> duplicates the entire library (or at least whole departments) to their
> local workspace. It's time-consuming, but it's only done exactly once.
> Then everybody works in parallel, constantly editing, committing, and
> updating. There's no locking, and there's no 'grabbing and putting
> back'... everybody has a copy of everything, all the time.
This depends on a merge system that works. At present I have not had much
sucess with subversion merge
I have previously used CVS merge and it works just great, no stuffing about
with revision numbers.
> In general, adopting a version control system means changing
> your work patterns. You need to be ready to do that if you switch from
> RCS to *any* new system.
>
Well I really don't want to change the way I work (much), but apart from the
merge problems Subversion seems to suite my work flow requirments.
I think subversion has the makings of a great versioning program. I
particularly like the fact that it keeps track of the dirs
and that nothing is ever ever really deleted.
But at the moment it still has a buggy feel about it.
However it has a great email list and thanks to all those people here and on
TSVN list who have been helping me get over the hurdles.
matthew
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jan 24 00:44:59 2005