On May 19, 2005, at 1:08 AM, Bob Proulx wrote:
>
> I was not saying that it should simply *mark* them up to date. I was
> saying that a commit should explicitly be followed by an update.
You're certainly welcome to run 'svn up' after every commit, but
they'll never be connected operations.
Just because you're ready to push changes to the server, *doesn't*
mean you're ready to deal with incoming changes (which can sometimes
be a messy merging process.)
In other words, pushing and pulling are very different actions, and
like CVS, we think it's good to keep them separate. Perhaps you're
wishing for a 'svn sync' command which would do both. :-)
>
> If we make those changes in non-conflicting (from a version control
> point of view) ways both succeed even if they are incompatible
> changes. Therefore after a commit it is now doubly important that I
> update and test again to make sure that this has not happened or it
> may be my change, which by happenstance occurred second, to be the
> breaking change. And the same in reverse for the other committee.
> True?
Yes. Just because you make *syntactically* mergeable changes,
doesn't mean the changes are *semantically* compatible. That why,
say, nightly build/test systems exist.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu May 19 15:16:11 2005