On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0100, Christoph Bartoschek wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 16. November 2010 schrieb Stefan Sperling:
> > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:43:35PM +0100, Christoph Bartoschek wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > what is the advantage of using
> > >
> > > ^/trunk/project/subproject_at_40 subproject
> > This new format does support relative URLs.
> > > compared to
> > >
> > > -r 40 ^/trunk/project/subproject subproject
> > This old format doesn't support relative URLs.
> > You can only use full URLs (http://svn.example.com/...) with this format.
> > See "svn help propset" for more information.
> svn help propset states that relative URLs also work for the old format.
Sorry, I got mixed up about the old and new formats.
The new format is as follows: '[-rN] URL[@M] PATH'
The old format was: 'PATH [-rN] URL'
The real difference between the old and new formats is that the URL cannot
have a peg revision in the old format (support for peg revisions in
svn:externals was added in r863820). This means that, using the old format,
one cannot refer to URLs which have been deleted in the HEAD revision.
> We currently use the old format with relative URLs:
> "Relative URLs are supported in Subversion 1.5 and greater for
> all above formats and are indicated by starting the URL with one
> of the following strings"
I've tried this using the actual old format (PATH [-rN] URL),
and you're correct. Relative URLs are supported in either format.
Received on 2010-11-16 17:12:36 CET