On Monday 11 April 2005 8:26 am, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 23:57:12 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | > SVN uses transactions and > | > changesets. These make a heck of a lot more sense if they're done on > | > a per project basis. > | > | reason? > > Because you can pull out a meaningful and relevant changeset without > having to arse around with path prefixes.
Do you have to? If so, why? > | > Unlike with CVS, this makes a big difference -- SVN > | > revision IDs are actually meaningful, > | > | SVN repository IDs represent the state of the whole repository at a > | given time, nothing more or less. > > Not repo IDs. Revision IDs. That's the one I meant. yeah. > | Hmm... besides, the ASF is just having a single repository for all > | their public projects (with about 1000+ contributors) w/o any > | problems. > > So we should make the same mistakes as them? Sure, a single repo would > be usable, but multiple repos would be a heck of a lot better. Seriousely, this is plain low FUD unless you can give me a decent argument on why the ASF made a mistake here. -- Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt 22:20:40 up 19 days, 11:27, 4 users, load average: 1.33, 1.03, 0.88
pgpVTtyatMt1P.pgp
Description: PGP signature
