Quoth Theisen, Gary <mailto:gary.theisen@eds.com>:
> This file was checked out of a 'main' directory that has,
> say...50 files in it and 10 subdirectories with 20 files in
> each of those (so lets say 250 files total). This .html file
> doesn't need to be 'versioned' with the rest of the files out
> there...many of which really don't have anything to do with
> this .html file in the example. So I'm still not seeing the
> benefit of 'having' to check out all 250 files, version them
> all and then check them all back in. Seems like overkill to
> me, but then again, perhaps I'm still missing the point somehow.
I think you are.
The normal scenario is that you "check out" the entire folder's worth of
files and leave them somewhere.
Later on, when you want to do a change, you first do an "update" to
fetch any changes anyone else has made. Then you modify that single
file and then commit, which will commit only that single file (since
that's the only thing that changed).
Over in the production environment, you can then just do an update
(assuming it's a working copy rather than an export), and it'll see that
only one file has changed and only update that one file.
"update" is the equivalent of "Get Latest Version" in SourceSafe, except
that the very first time you have to do a "checkout" instead, to create
the working copy.
There is no SVN equivalent of SS's "checkout" -- you can edit any files
you want without any need to formally check them out.
SVN's "commit" is similar to SS's "checkin" -- even to the point where
you can commit individual files while leaving other modifications
uncommitted. Not that you usually want to do that.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Nov 16 03:07:35 2005