On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 02:54:44AM +0200, Branko ??ibej wrote:
[ ... ]
> My first reaction was, "this is nuts, I have years of experience with
> other tools and they all do this differently". However, I quickly came
> to realise that it makes perfect sense, given the assumption that the
> natural granularity of commits is not a single file, but a logically
> complete change (bugfix, feature, what have you).
[ ... ]
> I believe many, many people have come in touch with Subversion and had
> the same first reaction as I did;
I remember, I was very excited when I read the first time through the
svn design document. The lack of unique-revision and unique-commit-logs
was something that always bothered me in CVS. But I was probably biased
by the fact that I tried to write a tool to generate a "revision tree"
from the output of "cvs log". The fact that it is hard to implement
branch support for cvs2svn shows very clearly that the CVS way is
a Bad Thing(TM).
Further, I think that svn is still too much file-based. But I promised
to Karl not to bring up this topic again until 1.0 is out of the door.
So I _don't_ want to discuss it now. If you are curious about what
I mean, feel free to check the first paragraph of
http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgId=164989
for the issue and
http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgId=165159
for a proposal how to solve it.
--
-- Josef Wolf -- jw@raven.inka.de --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri May 16 19:06:32 2003