Hi:
Hi! I'm planning to put a certain folder under a version control system.
The files under the
folder a combination of .sh (bourne shell), .ksh (korn shell) and .pl (perl)
files. As stated in
the title of the email most of these files are not related (e.g. changes to
file1.sh will not
affect the execution script1.pl).
According to this website http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.0/apa.html :
"In CVS, revision numbers are per-file. This is because CVS uses RCS as a
backend; each file has a
corresponding RCS file in the repository, and the repository is roughly laid
out according to the
structure of your project tree.
In Subversion, the repository looks like a single filesystem. Each commit
results in an entirely
new filesystem tree; in essence, the repository is an array of trees. Each of
these trees is
labeled with a single revision number. When someone talks about revision 54,
they're talking
about a particular tree (and indirectly, the way the filesystem looked after
the 54th commit)."
Given this explanation and my scenario stated in the 1st paragraph, would
CVS be a better
choice than SVN? I've used SVN before (but the usage is limited to
check-in,check-out and commit)
and I've never used CVS before.
Regards,
Ludwig Lim
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
http://lists.linux.org.ph/mailman/listinfo/plug
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
