[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: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2006-11-14 18:40:36 CET

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 09:54 -0500, Duncan Murdoch wrote:

> >> 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.
> >
> > It makes sense for a 'project'. It doesn't make much sense
> > for a collection of mostly unrelated files and it is cumbersome
> > to put each in its own repository.
> Why not? If you just think of revision numbers as tags, they are just
> as meaningful whether they increase sequentially or by bigger jumps.

How is it meaningful - or useful - for a revision number to change
when no related content changed? If you have a later version than
mine, how do I know if it is different or not?

  Les Mikesell
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 14 19:01:14 2006

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