[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 21:18:01 CET

On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 12:46 -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.

How do you describe this document, say over the phone? I've got
Revision: 528, someone else got 595, neither of us currently have
access to the log file. Are they the same document or not?

-- 
  Les Mikesell
   lesmikesell@gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Nov 14 21:34:12 2006

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