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

Re: Proposal for $Revision$ keyword amendment

From: Marc Sherman <msherman_at_projectile.ca>
Date: 2005-09-29 20:25:53 CEST

Molle Bestefich wrote:
> One of the reasons being that since it's entirely (easily?) possible
> to implement a keyword which reflects 'working copy last commit' in
> Subversion, it's dumb that every developer or admin or whatever around
> the world has to waste his time implementing his own inferior solution
> in his own build scripts (or what not).

It's not easy. If it were, Brane would have implemented it using an
environment variable ending in _HACK by now. :)

>>But the piece you are missing is that Subversion _only_ updates keywords
>>on files that have *changed*,
> That's not a piece I am missing.
> That's just behaviour that changes with my proposal :-).

So how do you propose this be implemented? Should a file with this
keyword in it automatically get modified locally every time it's
updated, even if there are no remote changes? Should all files be
scanned for this keyword so that update knows to hit them in this
unusual way, or should there be an svn property that controls this?
What happens when there's a commit in the working copy; should this file
be updated by svn commit as well as svn update? What happens if the
commit is in a non-local part of the working copy (ie: the magic
property is in ...wc/foo/bar/magic.txt, and there's an svn commit in

- Marc

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Sep 29 22:39:11 2005

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