www-community mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jim Moore <lo...@mooresoft.net>
Subject Re: CVS and Subversion
Date Fri, 11 Jun 2004 13:38:56 GMT
"atomic commits" is accurate -- the transactional part is a consequence of
it.  It's just that, in this case, the side-effect is cooler than the
"primary" feature.

But you're right in that it is different than most databases where you can't
usually get to the transaction information once it's committed; in SVN the
revision number is (effectively) the transaction id.  In fact, what SVN
stores is more a "transaction log" than anything.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Vadim Gritsenko" <vadim@reverycodes.com>
To: <community@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, June 11, 2004 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: CVS and Subversion

> Jim Moore wrote:
> >Actually, the "all or nothing" part of the transaction isn't a big deal
> >because, as you said, it's very rare that a commit in CVS would fail.
> >
> >What is VERY cool about the atomic part is that all of your files in the
> >commit are part of the same transaction.  With CVS it's a very difficult
> >determine what files were committed together.  Take a look at what the
> >cvs-commit email program has to do in order to send out a single email
> >all the files you've committed to see an example, where it has to make a
> >bunch of assumptions like "What other files have the same commit
> >and "Were they committed at the same time (give or take a few seconds)?"
> >Reasonably intelligent changelog reports have the same problem, but they
> >have to do that for every file.  Fortunately there are (nasty) perl
> >for figuring that kind of thing out, but it's simply a non-issue with
> >If you want to know what other files changed as part of rev 1234 you
> >ask the server what other files were part of that transaction since it
> >handles them all as one unit instead of bunches of seperate ones.
> >place it's nice is that if you have integration between your defect
> >and CVS you have to associate each file and rev back to the defect,
> >with SVN you only need to rev number as the files are implicit.)
> >
> >When I'm in "user" mode, I love the "move/rename keeps history" that
> >mentioned and don't really care about atomic/transactional commits.
> >However, when I'm doing tools & project administration, that's when the
> >transactions really rock.
> >
> >
> So, original mail ("atomic commits!") was misleading. It is really more
> about "SVN stores transaction log", but not about "atomic commit".
> Compare with databases, were transactions are atomic - but once
> committed, there is no way (usually) to find out which records were
> modified as part of transaction.
> Thanks for clarification.
> Vadim
> >-Jim Moore

To unsubscribe, e-mail: community-unsubscribe@apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: community-help@apache.org

View raw message