Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 08:59:24 -0800 From: Peter Wemm <peter@wemm.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Subversion? (Re: HEADS UP: Importing csup into base) Message-ID: <200603060859.25216.peter@wemm.org> In-Reply-To: <20060306102622.GB21025@tara.freenix.org> References: <20060304141957.14716.qmail@web32705.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <200603051930.25957.peter@wemm.org> <20060306102622.GB21025@tara.freenix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 06 March 2006 02:26 am, 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. Sure, but I was thinking in terms of what we currently use. With cvs, you have no remote access. With cvs+cvsup and a copy of the repo, you can do diffs, reverts etc. No commits. p4 has the same limitation as regular remote cvs. The point was that compared to the baseline of cvs+cvsup, there would be no lost functionality with something like svn in that particular regard. -- Peter Wemm - peter@wemm.org; peter@FreeBSD.org; peter@yahoo-inc.com "All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200603060859.25216.peter>