Russ Allbery <rra@stanford.edu> writes:
> Before going too far down the path of modifying VC, which has an interface
> very much oriented towards a single file at a time (intentionally so), you
> may want to look at the pcl-cvs package which already supports multi-file
> commits, renames, and other things that Subversion can actually version.
> It may be an easier starting point.
>
> I imagine there are a lot of people like me, who use VC to commit changes
> to single files and use pcl-cvs to do anything more complicated. They
> work fairly well in a complimentary setup.
I would just like to concur with Russ here, that as a Emacs+CVS user,
I use VC for (generally) small one-file changes, and pcl-cvs for stuff
with multiple-file impacts.
I should also say that I'm *really* happy with subversion in the
limited, but not entirely simplistic, testing I've done.
In using CVS for maintaing my debian packages---which almost always
have an upstream source branch, some with significant file churn,
others mostly static, plus local additions and mods---I always feel
like I'm fighting or working around the tool---mostly because of small
things CVS doesn't do for me, like merging from vendor branches not
deleting files that are no longer relevant in the trunk.
I was able to figure out, from available documentation and a few
months of the skimming the mailing list, how to maintain upstream
branches, merge stuff, keep tags for both upstream and package
versions, etc., in record time. Pretty much everything worked as I
expected, and I'm just waiting for beta before switching over.
Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jul 15 16:46:53 2002