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

Re: Perforce comparison

From: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-10-01 15:39:44 CEST

Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Remember that we have to use 'svn' to add, delete, copy, move files.
> Editing files is the one bizarre exception that you don't have to tell
> svn about, and it's an exception that we have to explicitly teach to
> svn-newbies. I suspect the reason so many svn developers shutter at
> the idea of a mandatory 'svn edit foo.c' command is because they were
> raised on cvs. :-)

I'm not familiar with p4, but if marking a file for edit is anything like
'svn lock' on an svn:needs-lock file (an unmarked file is read-only on disk,
and a marked file gives exclusive right to edit to only one user) then that
is -- for me -- a non-starter. And it has nothing to do with being "raised
on cvs", since I became familiar with CVS the day I started working on
Subversion. :-) It has to do with a very firm belief that to the degree
possible, a version control tool shouldn't get in the way of typical file
interaction. People keep all kinds of stuff under version control besides
hand-edited text files, and it's just as ludicrous to believe that all my
software packages are going to try to 'svn edit' the files they modify as it
is pointless to require that I keep my whole home directory marked for edit
"just in case".

So please tell me that 'p4 edit' is something much more sane than 'svn lock'
on an svn:needs-lock file, because it ain't the CVS-isms that concern me,
it's the SourceSafe-isms.

C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand

Received on Mon Oct 1 15:40:04 2007

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.