On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 12:19:36PM -0700, Vlad Skvortsov wrote:
> Peter Pentchev wrote:
> >Oh, you mean something like that, right? :)
> >As a matter of fact, I've updated this patch for 1.4.0, it's up at
> >And yes, I know that this is not really a good approach, and that each
> >client binary wants to be patched (not "needs", since nothing will
> >break, just the keywords won't be expanded), but still - it does what
> >I need right now for my personal repository, until a better solution
> >comes along.
> Hey, I really like the approach! While it's not as generalized as
> 'custom keywords', it's much simplier and seems to solve the current
> What is the status of the patch? Is that handed off to the patch manager?
> If my vote would count, I'd say +1 on that. :-)
Well, I'd suppose the patch has the same status as it had back in February
when I first suggested something like this - an unofficial, unapproved
patch that does the job for me, and that will probably not make it into
Subversion itself for many reasons (and, just for the record, I do agree
with those reasons).
The main reason was, actually, mentioned in this thread - this is only
a per-file setting, and thus has to be propset'd for each and every file
in the source tree. Either repository-level options or inherited properties
would be a much, much better approach - thus, this is only a temporary
Still, I'm glad to know that you like it :)
Peter Pentchev firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com roam@FreeBSD.org
PGP key: http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint FDBA FD79 C26F 3C51 C95E DF9E ED18 B68D 1619 4553
I had to translate this sentence into English because I could not read the original Sanskrit.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:11:50 2006
- application/pgp-signature attachment: stored