Re: [tlug] Subversion (was: More Tech Meeting Torrents)

[Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com>]

On 11/28/05, Ian Wells <ijw@example.com> wrote:

>  This isn't *quite* what you could do with CVS.  This wouldn't work with
> branching a branch and merging the new branch with the trunk, for instance.
> It's not spotting the common ancestor, it's assuming that the last 'copy' is
> the common ancestor, which is wrong.  CVS, of course, is renowned for not
> working with multiple interbranch merges, so to expect svn to do that would
> be asking more than it ever promised.
>
> In short: cvs update -j <branch> is very, very easy, and in most cases it
> just works.  svn is more difficult.

I see. I have never felt the need to branch a branch, and am thus
unqualified to discuss how SVN stacks up to CVS here. There is
probably some documentation on it in the SVN book--the authors were
pretty good at pointing out where SVN differed from CVS and why.

The book: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/index.html

>  Don't recall seeing it. I don't appear to have received anything on that
> topic at all after checking my archives.  Google might have been a bit
> spamhappy.

Here it is again:

svn diff -x '-uBw' ...

Cheers,
Josh