On 10/1/07, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net> wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >> 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.
>
> I admit, I can't think of anything more sane. That's probably the best way
> to do things if your goal is primarily to avoid having to crawl around
> looking for changes to versioned files.
>
> > 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.
>
> This is a tradeoff I am ever-so-quite happy to make. Why? Because avoiding
> having to crawl around looking for changes to versioned files is *not* my
> primary goal -- getting work done without my version control system getting
> in the way is.
I have the same sentiments...
> I realize, of course, that my personal, typical use-cases don't involve
> gcc-sized trees where 'svn status' takes a half-hour to run or something.
> But I rather like not paying workflow costs for optimizations I don't need.
> Others might need it -- that's cool. Make it optional, just as locking
> is optional today.
... and the same type of working environment: small to medium sized projects.
bye,
Erik.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Oct 1 18:10:25 2007