Re: Re: Alternative DVCS to git: hg?

[Andreas Krey <a.krey%gmx.de@localhost>]

On Wed, 17 Apr 2019 12:33:15 +0000, Johnny Billquist wrote:
...
> As long as I'm making changes that don't conflict with other changes, 
> the VCS is fine. What you seem to be asking for is that the VCS should 
> have a semantic understanding of a commit, and notice if the 
> code/content make sense after a commit. Or what am I missing?

I essentially want a way of indication 'Please commit this change,
taking the revision I now have in my workspace as a basis of that
commit' because a commit someone else is making in the meantime would
break my commit - not on a VCS but on a semantic level.

And even *after* the commit your tests continue to work locally,
until you do 'svn update'.

(Not that this matters much - feature branches, but you
don't really use them in svn because they are so unwieldy.)

...
> I'm not following again. If I make a commit, I would assume it shows up 
> afterwards if I check the log for the file. Are you saying it won't?

Operative words being 'for the file'. Meaning yes, svn commits are
atomic with respect to the files being committed, but not with
respect to the full tree that is visible in your working copy.

The naive assumption is that 'svn commit' makes a snapshot of the
working copy tree as it now is - but it does not.

- Andreas

-- 
"Totally trivial. Famous last words."
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@*.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800