Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> On Apr 2, 2005, at 9:07 AM, Patrick Hanna wrote:
>
> > it just prevents a user from accidentally modifying some portion of
> >the source because they have not explicitly checked out that file for
> >editing.
>
> I don't understand why this is a problem, or what great catastrophe
> you're trying to prevent. As you said, it's not about locking files,
> it's about forcing users to "declare" the files they intend to change.
>
> My understanding is that some systems (like clearcase or perforce)
> behave this way, but I don't suspect Subversion will ever grow such a
> feature. The 'svn status' command shows exactly what you've edited.
> If you can teach users declare the files they want to edit, it seems
> just easy to to teach them to run 'svn status' early and often, and
> especially before running 'svn commit'.
I think one of the advantages of this declared edit feature is that it
allows status/diff gathering to be blazingly fast. 'svn status' can
take absurdly long periods of time on large working copies. If there
were an option to have read-only checkouts and have a 'svn edit'
command make them read+write, Subversion could keep track of which
files had been edited and significantly speed up status, diff, commit,
etc. It would make svn usable on projects where working on only
portions of a large tree is not practical.
-Josh
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 2 22:11:19 2005