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

Re: svn vs svk?

From: John Peacock <zenoparadoxus_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-09-11 03:05:28 CEST

On 9/10/07, aaron smith <beingthexemplarylists@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey All,
> I'm looking into svk for an optional SCM, but I don't really see a
> whole lot of diferences. Some of the commands are used slightly
> different, but otherwise it's the same as SVN. Maybe some advanced
> merging features?

SVK is different, rather than better. Currently, SVK supports easier merge
handling, but that will change with Subversion 1.5.0. SVK also allows you
to work on your projects offline (i.e. on the airplane) and still commit
changes whenever you want. When you get back online, you can easily push
your changes back up to the main repository. Your working copies under SVK
are just the files themselves; no hidden textbase folders. But the other
side of that coin is that there is a centrally located hidden .svk directory
with a full local SVN repository instead.

The place where SVK shines is the ability to make a local mirror of some
other repository and work on it like you are working on the main
repository. If you have commit access to the remote repository, SVK will
allow you to have personal branches where you can play to your heart's
content and only push things upstream when you are good and ready to let
things loose. If you don't have commit access, SVK allows you to keep a
private branch in sync and generate a patch file to submit upstream, yet not
get confused about those changes coming back downstream.

As I said, SVK is different and works great for some people and doesn't do
anything for other people. I wouldn't go anywhere without it...

Received on Tue Sep 11 03:22:34 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.