On Fri, 2005-02-11 at 17:11, Joern RENNECKE wrote: > Moreover, I often want just a quick look at the source, and a checkout > has quite > a long latency for that.
It ought to be less bad for SVN than CVS, particularly for older code, and branches. Though I agree it's not going to be zero. > And finally, sometimes bugs in the checkout process or changes in the > modules file > can cause strange build failures. I'm not sure what SVN has in the way of modules support, but I'd be *very* surprised if anything it had wasn't version controlled, so this should be much less of a problem than it can be with CVS. > >So you should only need at most one copy of the source in your > >regression testing system, and when you copy the binaries, just record > >which revision they were built from. > > > > > > Huh? Why would I want to copy the binaries? > Sorry, I must have mis-understood. I thought you wanted to keep binaries of builds around so that you could work out quickly *when* a regression had been introduced, even if you hadn't tested a particular combination on that build originally. R.
