On Tuesday 06 March 2007 09:45, Jan Hendrik wrote:
> > But chances are slim this actually happens: of all 2^31 seconds
> > in a time_t, the damage would have to fall exactly on that
> > second...
>
> Chances are an evil thing to build upon. Overhere chances are
> great we tread onto each other's feet for quite a lot webfiles.
> Except for one single file chances are very low we conflict on Word
> files. Chances are almost null for concurrent editing of the same
> JPG file. And chances are actually null for conflicts with RAW
> photo files - as the RAW editor is installed on exactly one
> machine.
Hey Jan, great point! That is EXACTLY why we are advising against the
way you said you are using subversion. You are leaving yourself to
chance, and subversion does not have this problem if you use it
correctly.
> I don't follow the list as closely as I did between versions .27 &
> 1.0 (it was just the dev list of course, users came in only later)
> and therefore appologize if I am mistaken, but from some recent
> postings I got the impression that the philosophy behind
> Subversion has turned by 180 degrees since. Back then it was
> always that Subversion would go to the moon to prevent any loss of
> user data, these days to me it rather looks like the user has to go
> to the moon himself to accomodate Subversion.
From what I learned in your situation, you have actually "gone to the
moon" to create your risky environmen. The chance does not exist in
the case where there is one user per WC and one system clock which is
used when a file is edited, and no faulty tools used (which try to
preserve the mtime when in fact the file was modified). In those ways
there is currently nothing wrong with subversion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 6 19:13:52 2007