On 2/6/07 2:16 PM, "Les Mikesell" <lesmikesell@gmail.com> wrote:
> Steven Bakke wrote:
>
>> I don't want people committing every useless
>> modification either.
>
> A difference in philosopy, I guess... I think if something was worth
> typing it is worth committing. It is easy enough to back out changes later.
We're not dealing with text in all cases. A lot of people on this list
assume that source-code is the only use-case.
>
>> In many cases, recovering from a borked wc is
>> mostly annoying. The problem isn't always a matter of whether to commit
>> frequently.
>
> But if you did commit you don't lose anything by doing a fresh checkout
> so you don't have to waste time with more complicated solutions.
>
>> One thing Subversion doesn't handle well is if you have a set of files
>> which are generated by an external program. Sometimes these files or
>> directories will get overwritten rather than just updated. This kills
>> the .svn dir and then you have a problem.
>
> Yes, just like using an external program like 'rm' to delete your
> work... If it hurts, don't do it. Or have plan B to recover.
>
>> There's a big discussion on the dev list regarding the .svn directories
>> and moving them out of the working copy. This would be a big help. I
>> think that doing this would be a great option.
>
> Yes, I'd have to agree there, but it will introduce some new issues and
> still won't make your copy safe from other disasters.
We still have old-fashioned backup. If somebody accidentally deletes their
locally-modfied files, there is a good chance we can restore it.
None of what you say changes anything regarding the fragility of the WC.
-Steve
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 6 20:28:59 2007