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

Re: Subversion vs CVS for document files

From: Tim Hill <drtimhill_at_comcast.net>
Date: 2006-11-14 08:38:45 CET

Actually I think the single rev# is one of the best features of SVN.
Having used "per-file" rev# systems, which deteriorate into chaos, I
far prefer the Subversion approach. Plus the fact that, in effect, a
rev# becomes a changelist.

Why are your users raising hell? What is the workflow that needs per-
file rev# info?

--Tim

On Nov 9, 2006, at 9:48 AM, Eric wrote:

> At 12:01 PM 11/9/2006, Thomas Harold wrote:
>
> <TH>>>>>What doesn't work well (IMO) at the moment is pulling down
> partial working copies or deep-selective checkouts. SVN doesn't
> (yet) offer any easy way to pull down anything other then full blow
> project trees into the local working copy.<<<<<
>
> Right, that and the fact that the rev number for a whole repository
> is bumped whenever one file is revised.
>
> I know why this is done and I have no particular problem with it
> (would have preferred the option of revving up individual files but
> it's not a big deal). But, others on my team are raising holy hell
> about it and one is close to flat refusing to use it.
>
> I also prefer to use a single tool for everything but if separate
> tools do the job better, I'm not adamantly against the idea.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 14 08:41:35 2006

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