[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the state of the union

From: Mikhael Goikhman
Subject: Re: [Gnu-arch-users] Re: the state of the union
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 13:53:50 +0000
User-agent: Mutt/

On 17 Aug 2004 19:45:43 -0700, Tom Lord wrote:
>     > From: Miles Bader <address@hidden>
>     > I thought that "changeset orientation" just meant that all changes
>     > to a source tree can be committed to the repository as an atomic
>     > step, and these atomic steps have convenient names.
>     > Doesn't subversion have this...?
> Subversion fails to be *usefully* changeset oriented because it is
> *uselessly* changeset oriented:

I tried to find a compact description for my slides, so I asked about this
on #svn several days ago.  I got a compact answer, "changesets are not
first class objects in svn, that is the case in the systems like arch".

They don't think this is a flaw, because one may implicitelly refer to
the changeset in "svn merge".  I replied that, yes, explicit changesets
are kind of redundant for strictly centralized non-distributed systems.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]