| 1 |
On Monday 11 April 2005 8:26 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:12 +0200 Christian Parpart <trapni@g.o> |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> wrote: |
| 5 |
> | > SVN uses transactions and |
| 6 |
> | > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on |
| 7 |
> | > a per project basis. |
| 8 |
> | |
| 9 |
> | reason? |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Because you can pull out a meaningful and relevant changeset without |
| 12 |
> having to arse around with path prefixes. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
Do you have to? If so, why? |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> | > Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN |
| 17 |
> | > revision IDs are actually meaningful, |
| 18 |
> | |
| 19 |
> | SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at a |
| 20 |
> | given time, nothing more or less. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Not repo IDs. Revision IDs. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That's the one I meant. yeah. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
> | Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all |
| 27 |
> | their public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any |
| 28 |
> | problems. |
| 29 |
> |
| 30 |
> So we should make the same mistakes as them? Sure, a single repo would |
| 31 |
> be usable, but multiple repos would be a heck of a lot better. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Seriousely, this is plain low FUD unless you can give me a decent argument on |
| 34 |
why the ASF made a mistake here. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt |
| 38 |
22:20:40 up 19 days, 11:27, 4 users, load average: 1.33, 1.03, 0.88 |
Archives