On Wednesday 02 March 2005 18:23, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> writes:
> > <philipp.marek@bmlv.gv.at> wrote:
> > > second for the (highly experimental) owner, group, mode versioning.
> >
> > I've posted patches for this in the past that Greg Hudson has vetoed
> > because it's not possible for it to work on Win32. So, I'm not sure
> > that we'd ever accept this branch. -- justin
>
> Thanks for the reminder. I thought those objections had been worked
> out in later discussions, but maybe I'm wrong.
>
> Let's work it out now, then.
>
> Ph. Marek, just so we have a canonical reference, can you summarize
> the changes you plan to store on this branch? (Resending an old mail,
> or pointing us to the archives, is fine.) Once we have a canonical
> description, we can see if there are still any vetos.
I'll put an readme.txt or some such in my branch, and post the url when it's
there.
> This is the sort of situation where being SVK or Arch would be nice.
> Oh well. We'll have external branching and cross-repository merging
> someday...
I'm currently using svk. But as I've got no external visible namespace I asked
you for something where everybody interested could look :-)
Karl:
Does that piece mean that I have write access in /branches and should create
directories there myself?
* COMMITTERS: Add Eric Hanchrow (offby1) as a doc committer. Add
Ph. Marek (pmarek) as an experimental branch committer, leaving
the exact description of the branch for him to fill in.
What's better? Using 2 directories in /branches (for text-time and
full-meta-data) with a readme.txt within? or a single
directory /branches/meta-data-versioning with some subdirectories?
I'd like the second way.
Regards,
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Mar 4 08:45:52 2005