cvs vs svn...

[Jan Rekorajski]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, Paweł Sakowski wrote:

> On Thu, 2005-09-08 at 01:36 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> > > - 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.
> 
> Then how would you/did you ever revert a non-trivial release? Probably
> the least manual way is to `cvs diff` for the change being reverted,
> editing the result (sed or vim) to strip the changes in the changelog
> and `patch -R` the result, then commit. Any easier way?

Been there, done that,
cvs up -r <revision to revert to> some.spec ; mv some.spec some.spec.tmp ; \
cvs up -A some.spec ; mv some.spec.tmp some.spec ; cvs ci some.spec

Not that hard.

> > Did someone said something about disconnected work with svn?
> 
> Yes. That `svn diff` (local vs repo) and `svn revert` work disconnected.

[1]

> Noboby stated anything beyond that.
> 
> > Come on svn fans, you're contradicting yourselves.
> 
> Please elaborate. Show me two statements of mine (or other "svn fans")
> which logically contradict one another about that matter. I never
> claimed that `svn log` works disconnected. And breaking news: neither
> does `svn ci`.

You ("svn fans" ;) say [1] and then you say it's impossible to have
changelog in files (no $Log$ impleneted in svn). For me it's pointless to
have [1] functionality without being able to see the logs. So gain from
[1] is eliminated by the lack of log (I'm not able to know what to diff).

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