On Mar 29, 2007, at 3:31 PM, Rob McBroom wrote:
On Mar 29, 2007, at 3:50 PM, James Edward Gray II wrote:
The more you get into version control, the more you learn that those smaller changes are exactly what you want. You want to get it down to where each commit does just one thing, whether that's adding a new feature, fixing a bug, or just some copyediting.
Sure, and that's how I try to use it. But I wouldn't want to have to commit things just to get them over to a web server. If I did, there would be all kinds of commits with comments like "forgot a semicolon at the end of this line" or ten commits in a row saying things like "tweaking the spacing above and below H2 tags". Adjusting the spacing around a tag or setting something's color is a single "change" that only needs to be committed once in my opinion, but it might have involved dozens of trail-and-error updates to the file on disk.
To me, this is really more about issues with your development environment.
Honestly, there's no way in the world I could do my job without being able to check things as I go. I need to be able to run unit and functional tests, fire up a web browser and poke around, or something. Push-to-the server-then-visit just wouldn't do it for me.
Bottom line: Subversion is great for version control and crappy for "file transfer" or "remote editing", which is what the original question was about. Using it for other purposes would be a perversion of Subversion. :)
Sure. Good point. I agree.
On an unrelated note, I'm going through the book now and have picked up a lot of good stuff.
Terrific. I'm glad to hear it. Thanks for the support.
James Edward Gray II