[TxMt] Re: SVN?

[shin kurokawa]

I missed portions of this thread,
but I've been SVN-dependent for the last
couple of yrs having switched from CVS (...and
prior to that, RCS). and I rely on the #1 method you
suggested here. This method has saved my *ss
a gazimbillion times.

What #1 allows is... is to make the local
repo your gigantic undo stack --- especially invauable
if you're taking some work with you on the road,
possibly without net access, and/or if you'll be checking
out assets for days at a time, etc.....
And then once you're ready to 'publish' you can
commit to a separate repo for other users to checkout
from.

OTOH, the method #2 might work better if everyone
on your team is known to be 'connected' fulltime and
makes frequent check i/o's. Depends on the type of
work you do, I'm sure. YMMV.

BTW, to another poster recommending no commits until
something is verified to work ------ That's asking for trouble.
Even if unverified, you should commit regularly... just make
sure to log useful information. Your repo will not inflate
much for minute changes. Again, YMMV.

#1 is not a streamlined process, however, because
you have to maintain multiple repos. This gets confusing
sometimes.  So what I do is, everything I edit in
Txmt accesses the local repo, and using another SVN
program (svnX and SVN Finder Plugin on Mac, and Tortoise
and Ankh on PC) I check i/o to another 'public' repo.

FWIW,
-Shin

p.s. Here's a feature req for the SVN plugin.. Maybe
offer a preference-able item for 'default' comments,
maybe stick some fields that can be typed over.
And 'use last log' if a commit fails for some reason.
Ankh for Visual Studio on PC does this, and it's
quite a time-saver.


On 3/30/07, Charilaos Skiadas <skiadas at hanover.edu> wrote:
> Before we continue down this road, let's be clear about what Rob is
> suggesting, because I was also mislead in my original responses by
> not reading his post carefully. Rob is not suggesting not to have
> version control. In fact, he already has it in all his servers. What
> he is saying is, what are the advantages of 1 over 2, where 1 and 2 are:
>
> 1) Having two checkouts of the repository, one local and one on the
> web server. Then making changes to the local version, committing and
> then updating the server side.
> 2) Having only a checkout of the repository on the web server, and
> remotely editing that checkout. Then testing, and only committing the
> changes if things work out. So he can still revert his changes.
>
> So I think some of our points remain valid, but let's be clear about
> the issue. The issue is not version control or no version control,
> the issue is local checkout and not directly editing on the web
> server, versus direct editing on the web server.
>
> Haris Skiadas
> Department of Mathematics and Computer Science
> Hanover College
>