Re: CVS update vs SVN update

On Jan 22, 2006, at 5:33 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.
>
> 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.

The reasons most people ran 'cvs update' was that it was an easy way
to see what changed in your working copy. Running 'cvs status' was
hard to parse. The problem with running 'cvs update' is that you
pull in changes into your working copy that you may not want to deal
with yet (although you will have to deal with them when you want to
commit). So if you just want to see what's changed, run 'svn status'
and/or 'svn diff'.

Regards,
Blair

-- 
Blair Zajac, Ph.D.
CTO, OrcaWare Technologies
<blair@orcaware.com>
Subversion training, consulting and support
http://www.orcaware.com/svn/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org