[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/1.4.2.1i |
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.
Regards,
Mikhael.
- [Gnu-arch-users] the state of the union, Tom Lord, 2004/08/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the state of the union, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the state of the union, Tom Lord, 2004/08/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the state of the union, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the state of the union, Tom Lord, 2004/08/17
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the state of the union, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the state of the union, Tom Lord, 2004/08/18
- Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the state of the union, Andrew Suffield, 2004/08/18
[Gnu-arch-users] Re: the state of the union, Miles Bader, 2004/08/17
Re: [Gnu-arch-users] the state of the union, Greg Hudson, 2004/08/18
Message not available