[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Re: Correct Procedure.

From: MikeW <mw_phil_at_yahoo.co.uk>
Date: 2007-05-21 17:13:06 CEST

Mark Coleman <Mark.Coleman <at> tomtom.com> writes:

> Ok, thanks for the feedback on this.
> Kind regards,
> Mark Coleman | Software Developer | TomTom |
> mark.coleman <at> tomtom.com | +31 (0)20 8500955 office

Yes, although I generally groan when someone replies to a question with,
"I don't know why anyone would want to do that",
this time, I tend to agree !

If you are using Subversion to give you flexible access to and
control over your source files, then there should be no call
to also on a regular basis store the derived/build files,
since they can be immediately regenerated from source.

Plus the fact the the source should be 'authoritative' i.e.
if there is a conflict you always go back to the source.

Another possibility might be a better 'make' system so that only
source files that had changed needed to be rebuilt and relinked:
if the reason you were wanting to save built files was to
reduce rebuild times.

Alternatively a simple backup system to save all your working directories
in case of disaster, or as a checkpoint of a release build if you need
the files to be absolutely the same as your release.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon May 21 17:14:08 2007

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.