On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:28 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Subversion probably isn't the best VCS to use if you can't arrange
>> reasonable connectivity to the repository to make clean checkouts
>> feasible.
>
>
> Been there, done that, got my wrist slapped for questioning the mandated
> standard, no matter what it was. In this sort of case.
Mandating the use of a tool should go hand in hand with providing the
necessary resources. And with subversion, one of those resources is
reasonable network connectivity to the one-and-only repository (or the
harder task of replicated repositories)...
> The lack of a
> "restore this working copy to the pristine state" feature does not seem
> fundamental to any particular Subversion approach, does it? The "CVS done
> right" approach, the "centralized source control with cheap branching", or
> any of the other features?
Not deleting random unrelated files could be considered a feature.
> Right: it can be written locally, and it can be written *wrong* in a lot of
> ways locally.
Yes, but imagine the ways a command that removes files not under
version control could go wrong.
An option to 'status' that only shows the unversioned filenames so you
don't have to parse them out of the larger list if you want to remove
them might be nice. Doing it blindly seems a little heavy-handed.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
