Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 13:22:12 +0000 From: Nik Clayton <nik@ngo.org.uk> To: Ollivier Robert <roberto@keltia.freenix.fr> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base) Message-ID: <440C3784.6090305@ngo.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20060306102622.GB21025@tara.freenix.org> References: <20060304141957.14716.qmail@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20060304152433.W61086@fledge.watson.org> <BA422F74-E7F9-4F53-9A88-B89E2255FF00@behanna.org> <200603051930.25957.peter@wemm.org> <20060306102622.GB21025@tara.freenix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Ollivier Robert wrote:
> According to Peter Wemm:
>> Like perforce, it is fully client/server, but it has some considerable
>> advantages over perforce:
>>
>> 1) It has fairly good detached operation modes. You can do logs, diffs,
>> reverts, etc while detached. It does this by keeping metadata and a
>> small number of revisions cached locally.
>
> In my opinion, it is not enough. You can't svn commit on a detached mode.
> You can't work as if you were connected, commit several csets, go back one
> and so on. That's too limiting.
And when you need that, you use svk, which others have pointed out.
Given a hypothetical FreeBSD Subversion repository you could choose to
use either the Subversion project tools (which have that limitation that
you need network access to the repo to commit) or you use svk, which
lets you commit locally, and then propogate ("svk push") your locally
committed changes back to the FreeBSD repo.
>> The comments about svn's lack of branch merge memory make me a bit
>> nervous though. We've had brahcnes that have been incrementally merged
>> hundreds of times under perforce, and the lack of remembering which
>> revisions have and have not been merged would be sorely missed.
>
> Yes.
Fixed with svk. Fixed with contrib/svnmerge in Subversion.
N
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?440C3784.6090305>