Right, that's partly why I suggested Anton use svn. But, as John explained, he still finds cvs convenient for some purposes. b. On 12/28/09, Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des_at_des.no> wrote: > "b. f." <bf1783_at_googlemail.com> writes: >> I think John is referring to my first reply to Anton, early in the >> thread, in which I said that I thought it would be easier for Anton to >> get help for problems with -CURRENT by using svn revision numbers, >> because most base system developers were using that VCS. Apparently, >> John at least is not using svn exclusively, and is willing to look up >> cvs revision numbers. > > The problem is that CVS revision numbers are per-file, while Subversion > revision numbers are per-commit. A single Subversion commit that > affects twenty files will translate to twenty (file, revno) tuples that > must be rolled back individually, unless you can figure out a date (or > date range) that corresponds exactly to that commit and that commit > only. > > DES > -- > Dag-Erling Smørgrav - des_at_des.no >Received on Mon Dec 28 2009 - 21:28:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:59 UTC