On 11/13/05, Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com> wrote:
> > If you've got your parallel trees scattered around more, it won't work
> > as well, but maybe the answer is "don't do that".
>
> "Don't do that" is not very nice advice to people trying to migrate from
> CVS to subversion, because they may already have branches that don't
> cover the entire project. However, perhaps some cleverness (and more
> complex configuration capabilities) in cvs2svn would be good enough.
Okay. The hairier proposal that Marc's was a simplification of
doesn't have this restriction.
> The ability to map from short nicknames to longer branch names (e.g.
> a rewrite rule could map from "B#foo" to "branches/gcc-foo-branch",
> while the projectroot+treeroot proposal would require the user to
> specify '+branches/gcc-foo-branch").
The hairier proposal doesn't do this. (CVS doesn't either, if we're
concerned with appeasing reluctant converts.)
> From a syntax point of view, adding "+" as a reserved character at the
> start of a path seems less safe than adding "#" as a reserved character
> in a revision name.
The syntax is very much a straw man. The SVNP Python script is just
something to help out the GCC folks until we can make things work
directly in Subversion, and the + syntax works well with the wrapper
script idea, since it saves me from having to parse Subversion
options.
I'm still trying to get to the point where I feel like I really
understand what the diff options mean (blush), and that seems like a
prerequisite to proposing further command-line syntax. It may be that
neither --old/--new nor -r is the right place to put these names.
What I'm concerned with at this point is representing the needed
information in the repository.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Nov 13 10:06:50 2005