[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: CVS update vs SVN update

From: Duncan Murdoch <subversion_at_murdoch-sutherland.com>
Date: 2006-01-22 15:22:25 CET

On 1/22/2006 8:33 AM, Karl Auer wrote:
> This is probably a really silly question, but why exactly does the SVN book tell ex-CVS users not to use update to see their changes?
> In Chapter Three, in the section "Basic work cycle", subsection "Examine your changes", there is a sidebar that says "You'll have to break the habit of using the update command to see what local modifications you've made".
> It seems to me that update does pretty much the same thing in both CVS and SVN - integrates HEAD (or some specified version) into the working directory.

I think its just that CVS reports on locally modified files when it does
the update, whereas SVN doesn't. You need to use "svn status" or
something similar to do that. But it's been a while since I used CVS,
so I could be wrong.

Duncan Murdoch

> Or does the book just mean that since you can do it without involving the repository, you should? It's a pretty emphatic statement if that's the only reason...
> Regards, K.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Jan 22 15:23:40 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.