The repository having a revision number rather than each file is a *Feature*
of svn, not a bug.
On 10/4/06, Steve Martin <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'm just curious.. not meant to be a flame/troll etc.
> The last contract I was on, we needed an SCM system. I chose CVS, but the
> developers decided they wanted to try Subversion.
> So.. we went with subversion. We went with it, *I* dealt with the head
> aches, the fact that you can't make a simple commit without changing the
> version # of the entire repo,
> and so many of the other complaints / issues I've seen on this list.
> My new job also required an SCM system, and I set CVS up in half the time,
> without having to explain why the rev # of the entire repo and every file
> checked out changes during a commit, no "malformed this or that" errors,
> no issues with apache authentication, no issues with svn -d, nothing.
> It worked perfectly like CVS always has, which subversion never has for me
> or a lot of the others on this list.
> So... all I'm asking is, what is so great about subversion that would make
> people want to give up the tried and tested SCM system, for something that
> seemingly has so many problems?
> And the previous SVN setup was on RHEL 4, and the current CVS setup is on
> RHEL 4. I'm certainly not a noob to this kind of thing, and did RTFM before
> setting subversion up, but it never worked for us like advertised, while CVS
> worked exactly like CVS always does... import a file, only IT'S rev changes,
> not everything in that dir or the entire repo...
Received on Thu Oct 5 05:30:45 2006