On 2019-04-17 02:37, Andrew Cagney wrote:
On Tue, 16 Apr 2019 at 15:05, Sad Clouds <cryintothebluesky%gmail.com@localhost> wrote:Does it actually need to be distributed? If no, then what's wrong with Subversion? Personally, I can't stand Git.Subversion fails on two counts: - it isn't ACID (I'm told that's the correct DB term) In subversion parallel pushes are magically merged, maybe. For instance: developer #1's deletes a .h macro and developer #2 adds a .c use. ACID guarantees that #1 XOR #2 wins, and the other gets to sort out the mess.
I'm not sure I get it.Are you saying that subversion would interleave two commits? Commits in subversion are supposed to be atomic. And each commit gets a monotonically increasing commit number. Which also gives you in which order the commits happened.
The fact that the two commits would be dealing with separate files means there are absolutely no conflicts here, so I could/would expect that both commits would go through. The fact that one deletes some things that the other make use of is not something any VCS really can understand or deal with. It would be no different from if I were to commit some code that didn't work at all (for example make use of some macro that never existed in the first place).
If the commits would be hitting the same file, I really expect that the second commit would fail, with a requirement that the person first update to head before committing. At which point any conflicts or merges between the two commits should be sorted.
- it doesn't have true branches Instead it has conventions; lots of conventions; and based on experience, projects end up discovering that developers have been following all of them
That is my main problem/issue with subversion. It also don't have tags, which I also don't like.
Johnny
--
Johnny Billquist || "I'm on a bus
|| on a psychedelic trip
email: bqt%softjar.se@localhost || Reading murder books
pdp is alive! || tryin' to stay hip" - B. Idol