[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: NT porting gotcha

From: Zack Weinberg <zack_at_wolery.cumb.org>
Date: 2000-08-12 02:32:28 CEST

On Fri, Aug 11, 2000 at 05:24:57PM -0700, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On 11 Aug 2000, Karl Fogel wrote:
> > Based on conversations and emails, it seems that some people will
> > strongly prefer invisible ".SVN" subdirectories, and others strongly
> > prefer the visible "SVN" (or something similar). I'd hate to tell one
> > side or the other that there's nothing they can do about it,
> > especially when it's so easy for us to support whatever the client
> > specifies.
> And I *know* some people will want to use "CVS" if they're moving over
> from a CVS installation and that's the only protected namespace they have.

There's tools out there that assume they know the contents of a "CVS"
subdirectory. (ditto "RCS", "SCCS", etc.) Which isn't to say that we
shouldn't allow it - just that it mustn't be the default, because it
_will_ break stuff.

Also, consider the situation where you're vendor importing someone
else's CVS (or whatever) tree into your SVN repository. You're going
to have a staging area that's simultaneously checked out in CVS and
SVN. So for that application it is desirable for the subdirectory
name _not_ to be "CVS".

Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:06 2006

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.