[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: Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman_at_red-bean.com>
Date: 2007-10-01 15:50:37 CEST

On 10/1/07, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:

> 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".

That's a good argument against a mandatory 'svn edit' requirement. :-)

> So please tell me that 'p4 edit' is something much more sane than 'svn lock'
> on an svn:needs-lock file,

What would "more sane" look like? It's exactly the same. Files are
read-only by default. 'p4 edit' makes them read-write, and then the
server tracks your pending changelist. If you don't 'p4 edit', then
perforce doesn't believe the file is edited, no matter what.

Of course, the tradeoff is that commands like diff, status, and commit
never need to scan the working copy for changes: the changelist is
always defined at all times.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 1 15:50:50 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.