cvs vs svn...

[Jan Rekorajski]

On Wed, 07 Sep 2005, Paweł Sakowski wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-09-07 at 10:20 +0100, wrobell wrote:
> > - atomic commit (so we can commit patches and specs with one move
> >   and revert it easily later if there is a need)
> 
> A propos reverting.
> 
> One thing that we use (need?) and svn lacks is support for $Log$. So, we
> would be missing autogenerated %changelog. However, I personally would
> be happy to get rid of it, because:
> 
> - it only reflects commits to the spec, not to the patches (and seeing
> that the only difference between two releases is "rel up" is confusing
> and doesn't help one bit)

Smash the uneducated ;) Seriously having or not changelog in spec will
not change some people habbit of putting dumb comments.
But, most of the time changelog in spec helps.

> - it makes it impossible to revert by `cvs up -j` (you lose changelog
> entries)

Is it really that important? After 6 years of work with our CVS I can't
remember needing it.

> The question is: is there anyone who uses/needs `rpm -q --changelog`
> and/or wants/needs to have the changelog available offline? I would be
> happy with `svn log` to see the changelog.

Did someone said something about disconnected work with svn?
Come on svn fans, you're contradicting yourselves.

Janek
-- 
Jan Rękorajski            |  ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl   |  OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY?
BOFH, MANIAC              |                   -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio