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

Re: When to merge sparse-directories branch to trunk?

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com>
Date: 2007-02-03 20:02:02 CET

On 2/2/07, Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com> wrote:
> On 1/24/07, Michael Brouwer <mb.7766@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Just out of curiosity have you looked at how svk solves this?
> >
> > With svk the -N option is sticky, meaning update won't grab files or folders
> > that are missing, instead it marks them with a '!'. You have to svk revert
> > -R to actually get a directory back. (or without the -R for files). This
> > makes spare checkouts work quite well, and I believe svn could be made to
> > work the same way without the need for as much new code as is currently in
> > this branch.
>
> Could you describe this in more detail? I'm okay with walking away from
> the new code, if there's a simpler way to do this. (I admit, I wish someone
> had brought it up when we posted the spec, back in September or October,
> but that's the way it goes sometimes :-) .)
>
> There's no mode in which you can have the missing directories as empty
> subdirs, and then expand them, right? Oh, but you don't need that,
> because you see them whenever you do 'svn st', they're prefixed with "!".
> Hmmm. That's a bit scary -- it implies an error when there isn't one.
> The user requested that things be this way, whereas "!" usually means
> something is wrong. On the other hand, maybe that's an interface
> detail that could be tweaked.
>
> Can you bring a subdir back in -N mode itself, though?

Hmm, you know, the more I think about this, the less of a solution it
seems. What we agreed on (first at the Summit in October, then again
on this list) was a four-depth system:

   depth-empty
   depth-files <-- today's -N
   depth-immediates
   depth-infinity <-- today's default

(Behaviors described in detail at
.../branches/sparse-directories/README.branch.)

While SVK's "!" solution for missing directories is much simpler to implement
than what we decided on, it is also less functionality. I'd like to go for the
Whole Solution on this one, since it's within our reach.

Am I unfairly characterizing the choice here?

-K, who just discovered a bunch of conflicts when merging latest trunk
    into the sparse-directories branch and will now go sort that out

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Feb 3 20:02:19 2007

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