On 11/14/2006 3:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 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?
How did you determine that you've got rev 595? You looked in the wrong
place in svn info. You don't need the log for that.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Tue Nov 14 21:47:21 2006