DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41116>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41116 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-01-03 06:44 ------- (In reply to comment #3) > ATM every change adds and removes backup files. This makes it a PITA to sync > the > content with SVN. Maybe we could add an option to store all backups in a > single > file, or at least use non-changing file names (backup-1 .. backup-n)? i don't think this makes much sense. even if you had persistent unique file names, *all* old versions would pile up in svn, cluttering your repository in no time. it is never advisable to pile two different mechanisms on top of one another that both attempt to do the same yet are agnostic of each other (think of tunneling tcp/ip over tcp/ip as some VPNs do - two layers of transport control inevitably mess things up). we should either make svn our main repository and get rid of backup files altogether, or discourage using svn on our existing repo. what you could do if you need to get things done is instruct svn to only pull the current versions and ignore the backups. that would enable you to get a reasonably complete revision history in svn, provided you pull more often than users update, or you are content with snapshots at fixed intervals regardless of missing the odd update. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
