On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 10:41, Loritsch, Berin <bloritsch_at_dtri.net> wrote:
> This wouldn't be as much of an issue if AhnkSVN had a better conflict
> resolution interface. Maybe they've improved it from what I have, but
> that is the main reason for me to have to switch the client.
>
> I realize it is not TortoiseSVN's fault, but I would expect a read only
> operation like Blame or Log to not change the state of anything.
> However, that is one of the times that SVN updates its .svn folders.
> All you need is the URL of the server which hasn't changed really since
> I first started using SVN (whichever version that was when Apache
> started adopting it for some of their projects). The URL location is
> always the first identifiable URL in the .svn/entries file roughly five
> lines from the top.
That read only action is updating some amount of cached information
about the current state of the repository. It is not changing the
content of your working copy. Without doing this, performance would
take a hit.
> That's what happened the last time I got caught with this frustrating
> behavior. My expected behavior for any read only action from the server
> is that my local copy is completely untouched.
Your local copy **is** untouched. What is being touched is
administrative data to reduce overhead & improve performance.
> The current behavior of SVN violates that expectation. Perhaps this could be a bit of low hanging fruit that would avoid misguided rants from people like me in the future.
You're still barking up the wrong tree on this list. And the WC
administrative area is completely overhauled for 1.7, so asking a
change to the behavior seen in 1.6 without understanding what the
future state is will just be unproductive.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Wilson [mailto:ronw.mrmx_at_gmail.com]
> Sent: Sunday, September 05, 2010 4:15 PM
> To: users_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org
> Subject: Re: I'm a long time user with a long time complaint
>
> On Sat, Sep 4, 2010 at 2:28 AM, Kenneth Lakin <kennethlakin_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 09/03/2010 06:21 AM, Loritsch, Berin wrote:
>>> I am not the only one who has to work on a closed network...
>>
>> You would do well to explain to the managers of your closed (or is it
>> classified? ;) ) network that your SVN clients *must* all use the same
>> version of the client library, or you can't get your work done. Work
>> with them to come up with an upgrade or downgrade plan and stick with
> it.
>
> Of my clients that use SVN, most standardized on TSVN since that works
> for all users in the company. The rest standardized on AhnkSVN for
> Visual Studio. Either way, each company is using only 1 SVN client on
> user PCs. (And most of the IT departments still refuse to run the SVN
> server, so we are forced to use file:/// URLs over network shares.)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessage
> Id=2655702
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail:
> [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
>
>
> Confidentiality Note: The information contained in this message, and any attachments, may contain proprietary and/or privileged material. It is intended solely for the person or entity to which it is addressed. Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------
> http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2656505
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2656507
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2010-09-07 16:48:27 CEST