On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 12:06:27AM +0100, Daniele Nicolodi wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2003 at 05:18:55PM -0500, Ken Ballou wrote:
>
> > I think it may be too strong a statement to say it is "fairly uncommon" to
> > use the "file" scheme. For instance, I use subversion on my workstation for
> > my own private repository. (There are all sorts of files one might want to
> > keep under revision control -- all sorts of "dotfiles" for configuration,
> > for instance.) The file:/// access seems ideally suited for this.
>
> I think that if the repository is accessed only from locale RCS could be
> a better and simpliest solution.
But that quite misses one of the most important features of subversion!
Subversion implements transaction semantics, and the transaction unit is
a set of changes. So, suppose I change a header file, and suppose there
are several source files that have to be changed as well. I make the
changes, test, and then commit all the changes in one transaction. Later,
if I need to go back to an earlier revision, all the changed files revert
back.
Neither RCS nor CVS will handle that situation gracefully. If you've ever
had to play the game of "guess all the changes that go along with this
header file change, and guess what the right revisions are", you'll know
what I mean.
No, I can't agree that RCS would be a better or simpler solution.
- Ken
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Dec 30 01:30:18 2003