In article <200704111819000484.1ED9CCBB@mandy.fractalus.com>, "Damien M. Jones" <dmj@fractalus.com> writes:
I don't think Tim was referring to the repository storage method (bdb or fsfs) but rather the way in which users check in code. With CVS each file is checked in (there are no atomic multi-file commits) and you can just use Subversion like this too. Later, as you become more comfortable with Subversion, you can try committing multiple files at once... and it just works.
I commit multiple files at once with TortoiseCVS all the time. Of course the log message is just duplicated for each file, unlike the way SVN tracks groups of files as a single change. In reading through the SubVersion manual, it doesn't seem any different than CVS from a user's perspective, except in the way that version numbers are assigned.
There's also the issue of how access to the repository itself is granted. [...]
I was guessing we'd use svn+ssh://bazooka.dreamhost.com/users/twegner/fractint/fractsvn/ as the base URL for the SVN repository.
Note that as of Subversion 1.2, fsfs is the default, even though they explicitly state neither is more official than the other.
Ah, OK, I guess the manual is a little out of date then. The manual says that the BDB one is the default and the flat-file repository organization is there, but a little untested. -- "The Direct3D Graphics Pipeline" -- DirectX 9 draft available for download <http://www.xmission.com/~legalize/book/download/index.html> Legalize Adulthood! <http://blogs.xmission.com/legalize/>