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

Re: [PATCH] new property 'svn:tarballs'

From: Jeff Stuart <jstuart_at_computer-city.net>
Date: 2003-07-15 23:27:39 CEST

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 22:17:14 +0200
"SteveKing" <steveking@gmx.ch> wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "B. W. Fitzpatrick" <fitz@red-bean.com>
> >
> > I'm -1 on this going into Subversion, either pre-1.0 or otherwise.
> > While this is a nice feature and could save some people a bit of time
> > and energy, I believe that the functionality is completely unrelated
> > to version control. It is limited insofar that it can fetch things
> > using only http (what about ftp?), and it also introduces YAD (Yet
> > Another Dependency) into the Subversion build tree.
> I don't think its "completely unrelated to version control". This
> feature would help a lot in dealing with third party libraries. Right
> now you need to do that with "Vendor branches", i.e. putting
> those libraries under version control too. But that means that
> the backup of the repository needs a whole lot more space
> because the repository itself is bigger.
> Even "incremental" backups don't help here 'cause with every
> revision the whole repository changes and needs to backed up.

I have to agree with Brian on this -1. The reason for version branches is so
that you TRACK local changes to the 3rd party library. This way, as the
upstream library changes, you can still "easily" port your local changes to
the new versions of the library. If all you need is the third party library to be installed, that's what Makefiles (or other build scripts) are for IMHO. :)

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Jul 15 23:28:38 2003

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.