On Monday 11 April 2005 10:42 pm, Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:23:29 +0200 Christian Parpart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > | 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? > > Well, surprisingly enough, one of the main reasons we use these version > control things is so that we can see *what changed*. It's a hell of a > lot easier to do this when you can just say "show me everything that > changed in the foo project between three days ago and today" rather than > having to worry about adding in extra selections to pick a project path.
yeah ;) > | > | > 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. > > And, said revision IDs are useful for keeping track of what's changed. > Or, at least, they are if you know that an update of 3 in the revision > number is equivalent to three changesets, which you don't if you use > multiple projects per repo. This eases the understanding of course. However, sometimes moving file X from project foo to bar makes sense. I do not say that *you* will be in such situation, but I know I already went in. And besides, I'm (not related to gentoo) keeping multiple repositories for different projects and (where it makes sense) project categories. > | > | 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. > > One big repository is harder to work with. It's that simple. Might be personal taste, I can't feel here with you, but this is *all* not part of GLEP36. So, let's break here the loop ;) Regards, Christian Parpart. -- Netiquette: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1855.txt 23:25:53 up 19 days, 12:32, 4 users, load average: 0.94, 0.71, 0.65
pgpPWy2WtLrli.pgp
Description: PGP signature
