Book

[C. Michael Pilato]

That's great feedback, and I like your suggested fix.  I've committed the
change to trunk (r4305), and backported to our 1.7 (r4306) and 1.6 (r4307)
branches.

On 09/14/2012 08:38 AM, John Maher wrote:
> Book
>
> Hello
>
> I found something in the book that was rather confusingand caused me some
> problems.  It talks about the revision numbers applying to entire trees. 
> A tree can be defined several ways and the book doesn’t define one at
> all.  If you talk about a repository, a tree and a file this can lead
> someone to believe there are several trees in a repository (trunk, branch,
> ect)which is not the case for revision numbers.  To be clear it would be
> better to call it a repository treeor better yet/the/repository tree or
> something similar.  I know this is a common problem because when I asked
> for help from the mailing list they replied:
>
> “Note that the "tree" being talked about there is not an individual
> branch, but all nodes in the repository, including the /trunk directory
> and the /branches/feature directory.”
>
> They know exactly the problem I was havingprobably because they have been
> asked the same question several times.  I know what it means now but I
> would bet that a future reader will not.
>
> Original:
>
> *Global Revision Numbers*
>
> Unlike most version control systems, Subversion's revision numbers apply
> to/entire trees/, not individual files.
>
> Better:
>
> *Global Revision Numbers*
>
> Unlike most version control systems, Subversion's revision numbers apply
> to/the e//ntire//repository//tree/, not individual files.
>
> Thanks
>
> John
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> svnbook-dev mailing list
> svnbook-dev at red-bean.com
> http://www.red-bean.com/mailman/listinfo/svnbook-dev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.red-bean.com/pipermail/svnbook-dev/attachments/20120914/1aec43ac/attachment-0001.html>