Dirk-Willem van Gulik <dirkx@webweaving.org> writes:
> My problem is how to 'sell' this to experienced managers who over the
> years have seen green developers to be being relatively 'lazy' and 'like'
> the fact that an update/commit shows specifically any files not yet under
> cvs control. And specifically in that sell-story avoid anything which even
> slightly hints that this is a 'feature' done by developers for developers
> as developers might like not being nagged :-).
There's no real difference here, actually. Consider:
Neither CVS nor SVN show you unversioned files on commit. Both CVS
and SVN show you unversioned files when they show you the status of
your working copy.
The only difference is in the command people typically use to show
working copy status. In CVS, people usually use 'cvs up' for that,
because the output of 'cvs status' is so unwieldy. In Subversion,
they use 'svn status'.
So the only thing you need to "sell" is the idea that people shouldn't
run update just to find out local status -- which I hope isn't too
difficult a sell :-) .
Ben Collins-Sussman and I had a choir director in high school who used
to say "You can never break a habit; you can only replace it with a
different habit." A very wise observation, we think...
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Jan 13 17:43:19 2003