Erik Huelsmann said:
>>
> This is fairly bogus. So Alice has edited a file, thrown it away, and
> reverted to an earlier version. With or without a VCS, this is (as I
> said earlier in another post) the sort of situation that breaks makefiles
anyway.
> I'd do a make clean.
Well, it may break other VCS with makefiles, but this scenario works under
Subversion, so, although make clean is a very good idea (always), there is
not stricktly a need to with svn...
<<
Yes, I realise that svn's current behaviour would favour this one scenario.
However, I can offer plenty of counter arguments. Consider a project where
some data files are built by some utilities, also within the project (the
./configure example has been used before). Whether or not the makefile
figures it needs to rebuild the data files is currently a roll of the dice.
In fact, the ability of the makefile to infer *any* kind of status of the
component parts of some entity is entirely nuked by svn. As far as I can
see, you have no choice *but* to do a make clean anyway.
Like others have said, I'm fairly used to gaining a quick idea of the state
of play of the project by sorting by date. Some files are current; some may
not have changed in years. I'm currently looking at a source file folder in
which some font files were built back in the 80s. The last-modified-date
timestamp is a useful piece of data which svn simply discards. As I said
earlier, this rules out svn for production use for me/us. Seems a shame. So
near, yet so b0rked.
Steve
http://www.sfdesign.co.uk
http://www.fivetrees.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Aug 29 20:52:23 2006