Re: .svn directories

Wadsworth, Eric (Contractor) wrote:

> The only bearing it has on this discussion is
> that I think that more widespread adoptation will occur if users perceive it
> to be less invasive, which is a point in favor of external bookkeeping
> instead of .svn/ subditrectories in the source tree.

I think you are missing my point that subversion is less invasive than CVS on
this point (since the directory can be easily hidden from casual site). And CVS
has been in use _forever_ and somehow people got used to that CVS/ directory in
every directory of their sandbox.

I also think that many people have pointed out that external bookkeeping has
problems of it's own. A working copy is a special sort of directory tree, not
just a conventional source code tree. There are lots of things that you can do
in a conventional directory tree which will require special handling in a
working copy. Just storing the admin files outside the tree merely hides (and
not in a good way) that special handling.

If a user is unwilling to perform basic maintenance on their source files (which
is all the 'svn cp' really is all about), putting the admin files outside of the
directory tree isn't going to help. Users who refuse to learn new techniques
are not the target audience here, I think, nor should they be. Version Control
Systems all require a different work process in order to operate.

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org