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

RE: Checkin without working copy

From: Stefano Righi <StefanoR_at_ami.com>
Date: 2007-01-26 20:53:03 CET

Thank you for the good pointer: I was missing (and therefore asking)
for the error returned in check-in of a "modified and out-of-date" copy.
The tool is good for what the user is.
I know the two models and I have suffered too much in the past because of the
copy-modify-merge method. At the end I believe the lock together with a good
operation management increase productivity: the merge of remote and local modification
is never an easy task because the local user have good understanding of the local modification
but not of the remote ones.
Anyway, the working copy method do not work in my case because the structure of
the repository tree and the local tree do not match.
Stefano

-----Original Message-----
From: sussman@gmail.com on behalf of Ben Collins-Sussman
Sent: Fri 1/26/2007 1:26 PM
To: Peter Lundblad
Cc: Stefano Righi; dev@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: Checkin without working copy
 
On 1/26/07, Peter Lundblad <plundblad@google.com> wrote:

> > Isn't it a good practice to "lock" the repository when I start doing
> > a modification in my local copy?
> >
>
>
> This is one way of working, but svn mainly implements the copy-modify-merge
> model. To simplify working with binary files, there's the locking
> feature that makes it possible to work exclusively on a file. This
> is described more in the first chapter of the Subversion book at
> svnbook.red-bean.com, which might be a good read.

Yes, I think you're not understanding some very fundamental concepts
about how Subversion works. :-) You should read this chapter of the
book:

  http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.basic.html
Received on Fri Jan 26 20:53:18 2007

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