Aaron Optimizer Digulla wrote:
> Well, does this matter? I mean how many developers actually *need* atomic
>
>commits? Or to put this another way: How big a problem is this? When
>I do an update and it breaks, I do another update. That's not much
>effort.
>
>
Anyone who does Continuous Integration probably has "atomic commits"
near the top of their requirements list. Anyone who does distributed
development over (possibly flaky) network connections probably wants
atomic commits. Anyone who's ever checked out a half-checked-in piece of
code and spent time figuring out why it won't compile probably wants
atomic commits.
I don't *need* atomic commits. I *want* them though, because they make
my life easier, and so I choose to use Subversion or Perforce (or I
would choose, given the choice). Bottom line is that if you're just
storing a repository for yourself, you might not need all the things
Subversion gives you. CVS might work just fine.
How big is your repository? You want to share it between Windows and
Linux? How about having a Windows repository, a Linux repository, and
using dumpfiles to keep them both up to date. When you are finished
working on Windows, you dump the repository (incrementally) to a
dumpfile, unmount the memory stick, boot Linux, mount the stick, import
(incrementally) into your Linux repository, and carry on as normal.
Mike.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Dec 10 09:53:49 2003