On 11/9/05, Alan Barrett <email@example.com> wrote:
> I think that Greg's idea of transformation rules required the two
> directories to have a common ancestor (at which there would be a dirprop
> describing the transformation rule), whereas your idea doesn't need
> a common ancestor (placing the necessary dirprops at the "trunk" or
> "branches/foobranch" or "vendor/release" level, not at the "project"
Yes --- at the cost of having to place more properties.
I noticed two unsolved problems: If several branches are each declared
> as parallel to the trunk, how do we know that the branches are also
> parallel to each other?
You could set an svn:parallel:branch property on some parent of the
branches, as well as on (a parent of?) the trunk; then +branch would work
And how do we know how many directory
> components are part of the branch specifier, as opposed to part of the
> directory within the branch?
Right, that's another question that I was trying to get at here:
# ... But how do you eliminate branch names in
# 'branches/branchname/subdirs'? If there's deep hierarchy under
# 'branches', you don't know how many components to drop to find the
# trunk, but keep subdirs.
Received on Wed Nov 9 22:28:57 2005