> David Weintraub <qazwart <at> gmail.com> writes:
>
> >
> > On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:25 AM, LiuYan 刘研 <lovetide <at>
> 21cn.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > > Because a single svn commit will result in a whole new revision
> tree, so
> > > currently I commit all changes once per day after work (to
> avoid too many
> > > revisions because of my old CVS habit).
> > >
> > > But I'm afraid it's not a proper way, so:
> >
> > Commits should be done as part of a set of changes. Think of it
> this
> > way, you are repairing Bug #123, and to do that, you have to
> modify
> > four files. Those four files and only those four files should be
> > committed together as a fix for Bug #123.
> >
> > This way, if there is some reason to back out this change, it is
> easy
> > to locate and do. One of the biggest reasons to use Subversion
> over
> > CVS is when it comes to backing out a change.
> >
> > In order to backout a change in CVS, I first have to find all of
> the
> > files changed which can be difficult. In CVS, all files are
> versioned
> > separately. Doing a cvs log is unwieldy. It's one of the reasons
> we
> > would tag after each CVS build.
>
> BTW, CVS tagging is very nice, 'tagging' (svn copy) in subversion
> is like an
> extra commit and result in a new revision, although 'svn copy' is a
> light/cheap
> way in subversion, it still make me confused sometimes.
>
> I remember there's feature request about this, maybe called
> 'labeling' or
> something like that, wish it can be implemented in future
> subversion version.
No thank you. Since "tagging" is usually done at the file level and it can take forever. Yes you get an difference rev number in svn when you "tag" but um... frankly I ignore the rev numbers in svn. TSVN makes that very easy to do.
You'll get used to it quickly and probably prefer it too.
BOb
Received on 2010-10-13 22:29:05 CEST