[pmwiki-users] Proposal: version control for cookbooks recipes

[Crisses]

On Oct 24, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Martin Fick wrote:

> --- Crisses <crisses at kinhost.org> wrote:
>> On Oct 24, 2006, at 3:10 PM, marc wrote:
>>
>> I branch by  copying files.  Primative, but it
>> works.
> ...
>> It was not made for the non-programmers or the
>> copy-to-branch crowd.
>
> Branch to copy is exactly what SVN allows you to do!

no -- I mean "duplicate the folder" --

cp -r folder newfolder

or right-click "copy folder" on Mac OS X

or right-click "copy" right-click "paste" in Windows

or copy folder.* folder-o.* on dos (no, I don't remember !! :) )

> That is why I think it is more intuitive than other
> version control systems. Simply copy a file or a
> directory to a completely new name and voila, you have
> branched it!  You do not have to follow the
> trunk/branches conventions that many projects use.

I strongly disagree with "simply" here.  What's the line command?  I  
have to even remember to type "svn checkout", "svn update", "svn hold  
the mayo"  -- say it's "svn copy".  But that's only a copy.  It's not  
IN the repository and all nice and protected yet.  You have to run  
two more commands to do that part.  First you need to update to make  
sure you're not messing up anyone else's work, and check your diffs.   
Then you have to svn commit.  *ah* now you can breath easy that your  
data is protected and properly merged with the server.  At least with  
a straight file copy I *know* that I have no security. ;)  None of  
that ambiguity about whether or not my files are checked in.  Is my  
stuff protected?  Well, did I run the incremental backup on the  
external drive yet?  *ah*

> Use it as you see fit.  The beauty of putting
> tags/branches back into the file namespace allows
> people to organize things the way they are used to
> without a version control system.  The policy is for
> you to decide, not the tool.

if you're used to that habit.  I'm not.  I tried.  I couldn't make a  
habit of it -- or didn't -- a year from now my tune may be all  
"subversion rocks"

but it's not intuitive.  Maybe if you're using WebDAV or some rockin'  
gui -- but basic subversion is not as easy as 'cp -r folder folder- 
old'.  I always forget that I'm even USING something that has a .svn  
folder.  That I need to svn add new files.  That I need to use svn  
when I rename files.  By the time I remember that I have a repository  
to update, I've forgotten what I did to the files -- and then I need  
to remember other svn commands to figure out what I forgot to add/ 
move/update/delete.

YHMV (your habits may vary)

>> If you want me to try managing the  actual SVN
>> repository "tags" "branches" and "trunk" I'm
>> going to turn into a  kicking & screaming 5 year
>> old.  No, really!

Oh -- by the way, I wasn't going to kick & scream on the list. LOL   
People are welcome to do what they want.  I think a cvs system (but  
not CVS) is a great idea.  But I still HATE the idea.  When I was a  
child, I was told that liver is very very healthy and everyone should  
eat it.  Eeeeeeew -- liver.

> I never liked that standard and I don't use it, so
> neither should you if you don't like it, make up your
> own, you can!

"can" != "will" != "do"

The nice thing about "branches" "tags" and "trunks" is that at least  
the tutorials cover them.  One can swath oneself in the security  
blanket of "at least someone has thought this out and used it  
before".  It doesn't mean it's not confusing and problematic to begin  
with.  Another way to manage my files in subversion -- renaming the  
categories isn't going to stop it from being an odd mess of features,  
commands and philosophy that require me to break old bad habits that  
were the very reason it was created in the first place.

Put another way "maybe there's a reason that Linus Torvalds doesn't  
use subversion".

Crisses