> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Peacock [mailto:jpeacock@rowman.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 14:05
> To: kfogel@collab.net
> Cc: Sander Striker; sussman@collab.net; SVN Dev List
>
> kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> > Ben Collins-Sussman writes:
> >
> >>So for these reasons, I think {Ben, Karl, Justin} are of
> the opinion
> >>that if we have a timestamp feature at all, the CVS behavior is
> >>probably the least evil of all options, and most useful.
> >
> >
> > Yah. Plus the no-surprises factor if we just do what CVS does.
>
> I've been following this discussion and trying to put into
> words what my expectations would be. The method that would
> suprise _me_ the least is if I commit a project, then check
> it back out in a different location and all the of timestamps
> matched (except possibly directories). And that would be
> true for any historical version, so I could recreate a given
> project at any point, exactly as if I had tar'd it up. And
> yes, I do realize that means a versioned commit time for each file.
Like John, I have been trying to follow this discussion and find that I
agree with him about being least surprised by a versioned commit time for
each file.
The first time I did a fresh checkout from Subversion I was VERY surprised
about the date time stamps of the files. After reading all the
documentation about how the entire directories were versioned and to revert
to a particular revision of the entire directory tree was so easy, I guess I
assummed (yes a bad idea I know) that when I checked out a particular
revision I would get a tree that looked 'exactly' like it did at commit
time. When that wasn't the case, as I said I was very surprised.
-Mark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 24 20:13:53 2003