Hi !
I just printed out the latest version of the book at
svnbook.red-bean.com. I looked up some sections talking about 'cvs
update' and Subversions corresponding commands ('update' and
'status'). Isn't the CVS command described as worse than it
actually is?
'cvs -n update' is not mentionend. Instead the text says (page 25,
my emphasis):
You're probably used to using cvs update to see what changes
you've made to your working copy. svn status will give you all the
information you need regarding what has changed in your working
copy -- without accessing the repository or **potentially
incorporating new changes** published by other users.
and on page 242:
... Instead, they've developed a habit of running cvs up to
quickly see their mods. Of course, this has the **side effect of
merging repository changes** that you may not be ready to deal
with!
I think I understand the purpose of the text: to point out the
better separation of functionality between 'status' and 'update'.
But I think the comparison would be more "fair" if 'cvs -n update'
was mentioned. As an old CVS-user I regularly use 'cvs -n update'
just to avoid the copying, and was confused to see no mention of
that in the text.
Thanks for a great piece of software,
/Johan Holmberg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Mar 30 18:45:37 2004