[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: timestamp preservation design (issue 1256)

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2003-06-24 21:06:27 CEST

On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 12:52, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 10:46, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > > I think I'm starting to agree with Justin, and Karl is too.
> >
> > Ew, no, no, no, no, no. -1 on the CVS behavior.
> >
> > It's surprising,
> To whom?

It was highly surprising to me when I found out about it as a CVS user.

> > it has no interesting properties (it doesn't satisfy make, and a
> > directory which has been updated even once has a mismash of checkout
> > dates and current dates),
> For developers, it *does* satisfy make 90% of the time.

If you're going to do something truly awful in order to make something
else work, it should be a 100% solution, not a 90% solution.

> > > * release managers: 90% of the time they do a fresh checkout (or
> > > export) of an entire tag.
> >
> > For a small tree, maybe. For a big tree, why would I waste my time on a
> > fresh checkout when I could do an update or switch?
> Maybe I should say: "managers". Managers check out whole tags. They
> don't keep working-copies lying around. They check out a tree, build
> it, then delete the tree. Same goes for automated build-systems.

I'm a release manager (in my work capacity). It takes hours to check
out my 1.6GB source tree. I keep one lying around, and so does my
automated build system.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jun 24 21:07:28 2003

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.