> email@example.com writes:
> > Hello, I am trying to transfer from CVS to subversion which acts as
> > the next version of CVS. But I am in trouble with checkout and
> > commit command which have different behavior from CVS. In CVS, If I
> > run "cvs co module_name" when there is already a working copy of
> > this module, cvs will not update the working copy except for the
> > files not updated. But SVN re-checkout all the files except for the
> > files modified locally. It causes the project to be recompiled as
> > timestampe changed. It's not a big issue. I could just avoid it by
> > running update.
> Yes, svn is slightly different than cvs. 'checkout' is used to create
> a working copy once. After that, you should run 'svn up'.
> > In root directory of svn repository, I have libraries as lib1, lib2,
> > lib3. They are shared modules for project. The project proj1 is in
> > the root directory too. In working copy, I would like the libs under
> > directory of proj1. But the trouble is that: If I run svn commit
> > under proj1 directly, it only commit the changed file for
> > proj1. Files modified but in lib1 and lib2 will not be commited. For
> > CVS, it will examine the sub directory and commit the changes to the
> > correspoinding module. The same problem for Status/update
> > command. Any idea to work around it? Thanks
> Yes, you want to use the svn:externals feature. You can read about it
> in chapter 6 of the Subversion Book:
> At the moment, I don't think 'commit' or 'status' traverse externals
> definitions, only 'update'. I can't remember. I think we may need to
> file an issue on this.
The svn:externals is really a great features. It works well in my computer.
I have just checked the svn status and svn commit. These
two command doesn't examine the exteral items exactly as you pointed out.SVN status command even gives the annoying ?file for the external items. I would like to advise it to be included in the final release but it's up to you team.
When in CVS, update command returns the information of the modified files but SVN doesn't. Actually such information is very useful. Then I need to run SVN status. But SVN is slower than CVS. It's more or less a waste of time to run two commands where one command is enough. Doesn't SVN update actually do everything SVN status does except printing the result to the console?
Thanks for your answer.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Mon Feb 3 20:35:22 2003