On Jun 7, 2008, at 09:43, Robin Cover wrote:
> 4. The collected commentary to date reveals (repeatedly) a
> watershed difference between "code" assets (e.g., source
> code to be used by Make or otherwise compiled into
> executable code) and "document" assets. SVN is used
> mostly by programmers managing source code, so it's
> natural to hear Erik say: "It [timestamp preservation]
> complicates the /CODE/ in your VC system."
I believe Erik was talking about the source code that makes up the
Subversion project, not the code or other content that might be in
your repository. He means the Subversion source code should be kept
simple. And that's true. But as the (possibly apocryphal) Albert
Einstein quote goes, "Everything should be made as simple as
possible, but not simpler." In this case, discarding original file
mtimes is too simple for some users.
> Many of the
> use cases referenced by users needing 'mtime control' involve
> the use of SVN for documents, where the files to be managed
> are often whole entities with independent status -- not
> code components to be compiled. Many applications which
Note also that not all code is compiled, and not all programmers want
mtimes discarded as Subversion currently does. I write source code
for web pages, and I do want my files' mtimes preserved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-06-08 10:18:35 CEST