On Jan 7, 2007, at 9:18 PM, Peter Donald wrote:
On 1/8/07, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's not so much the patches being applied fast enough. The
problem is
> that if I'm adding a new file, and I contribute that, I effectively
> can't work on it any more until the file is applied. That's because
> when it's subsequently added SVN throws a wobbly and refuses to do
> anything because there's a file already there. I'm going to get
this
> anyway -- solution is to delete and then svn up -- but if I've made
> changes to that file (or someone else has made changes that I don't
> have) then any further changes get lost. It's less of a problem
when
> there are already added files there, but most patches I've
submitted
> have had new files in place, and it does take me a while to sync
after
> a patch has been applied.
...
How about svk?
I use SVK to do things like this almost everyday and it works like a
charm. I even use SVK to do changes on repos I have write access so
that the granularity of main repo commit is the related to size of the
feature change.
I don't understand quite what you mean.
About the only negative with SVK is that it can be a
PITA to install.
I'm going to give it a whirl. I've been pondering the benefits/
downsides of a distributed version control system, and maybe this
will help me get a better perspective.
geir
--
Cheers,
Peter Donald
