2005/8/21, Julian Fitzell <julian at beta4.com>:
> Hmm.. none of these really make sense, though, in terms of really
> putting things properly into SVN.
Agreed.

> This is mostly because Monticello
> uses a new filename for each revision (well, it doesn't technically have
> to but things would be confusing if you didn't) while SVN stores
> multiple revisions of the same filename.
Agreed.

> You might be able to make one of these work if all you want is for the
> data to be stored in an svn repository in *some fashion* but I don't
> really see the point in having hundreds of files in a svn repos, all
> with only one revision, no history, and no commit logs.  <shrug>
- Squeak code is stored in the same place as the other code
- Simple, almost no effort whatsoever
- Works
For the rest, there's MC.

I don't pretend any of these solutions is anywhere near optimal. But
as I said, they are simple, (should) work and require very little
effort.

Don't get we wrong, if Stefan Krecher or anyone else has the time and
the desire to implement an mc svn backend: cool, I'd love to see that.
But I wouldn't if I was in his place.