From: Victor A. Wagner Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-02-06 11:58:24
At Sunday 2005-02-06 04:45, you wrote:
>On Feb 6, 2005, at 1:06 PM, Daniel Frey wrote:
>>Martin Slater wrote:
>>>Can anyone comment on whether the branching has got better in svn? In
>>>particular (Quoting from
>>>Here's the real killer blow for me: Subversion doesn't keep track of
>>>what merges have been applied to a file. That's up to you to keep track
>>>of somehow. That means that for every file (or set of files), you have
>>>to know up to what revision they've been integrated, and only pull in
>>>the changes from that revision on. [...Double quote deleted...]
>>>This appears to be very limiting if you rely heavily on branching.
>>Is that any worse than the current situation with CVS? If not, it's not a
>It's exactly the way CVS works. Without clear and consistent naming of
>tags, tags used for branchpoints and branches, both CVS and Subversion
>Since SVN is the same as CVS in this regard I do not see this as a problem
It's becoming apparent that the ONLY possibilities being considered are CVS
(ancient history) and Subversion. Other than my mention of cvsnt and one
other NOBODY is looking at it.
not to put _too_ fine a point on it:
CVSNT ELIMINATES THIS PROBLEM!!
>>Unsubscribe & other changes:
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk