[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: Duncan Murdoch <murdoch_at_stats.uwo.ca>
Date: 2006-11-14 18:46:47 CET

On 11/14/2006 12:40 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 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?

You look at the log for that file. If you want to know which version
you've got, you read "Last Changed Rev: 528" from svn info, rather than
"Revision: 595". That's the number the svn:keywords will give you if
you want to insert it into the text.

This is only a problem if you're desperately searching for problems.

Duncan Murdoch

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 14 19:09:10 2006

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