On Wed, 2004-01-07 at 17:37, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2004-01-07 11:34:31 -0500, mark benedetto king wrote:
> > It's more likely that since we currently claim "our date parser works
> > just like CVS's" and most of our users are familiar with CVS's, they
> > just don't bother complaining.
> Well, as a CVS and Subversion user, I *never* use absolute dates
> (mainly because the MM/DD/YY format is non-sense for me; probably
> ambiguous, misleading and counterintuitive for many European users).
> I just tried the ISO format in the past (with CVS), because this was
> the most logical way to provide a date, but it didn't work. Another
> problem with Subversion is that the date format isn't documented
> with "svn help" (or if it is, I don't know where).
Just as another point of view, having used CVS for quite a while to
manage a pretty large repository at my company, the only time I know of
that we use the date functionality is when an automated cruisecontrol
build kicks off, in which case the tool uses dates in it's cvs log
command to get changes since the last valid build. I'm much more
likely to check out by tag or individual revision (as is my staff).
With that said, however, I'm sure there are instances in which dates are
indispensable (say svn:external situations with mixed repositorys).
That functionality aside (and it not being available in CVS), I have
never had a good reason to pull source by date.
Having been a very excited subversion user here at home since 0.17 (and
by the way, waiting patiently for 1.0 so that I can justify converting
our CVS repository over because SVN is so much more elegant) I have not
yet had the need to pull source by date using subversion either.
As an aside, you guys have done a PHENOMENAL job in creating a viable
alternative to CVS. I have spent more time than I care to account for
talking about this "new version control tool" to my staff. While I
understand the arguments for changing the parser now, my experience
(however limited that might be) causes me to believe that a version 1.0
with the same parser as CVS is much more important to allow people to
convert than is the date parser, considering that anyone that IS using
dates is used to the quirkyness of CVS anyway.
For me, the publishing of a 1.0 release is the one "feature" I have been
waiting for to justify a full on conversion from CVS to SVN with my
management. The date parser doesn't add any weight to my arguments.
For those of us that already know how stable SVN is, we can try to
justify it to management by our experience, however in many companies,
beta doesn't cut it and the software must be "officially" released.
Just my $0.02
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Thu Jan 8 13:09:58 2004