Blair Zajac <blair@orcaware.com> writes:
> I'm just going to drop this checkpoint with a real commit, hopefully
> tonight. When I get the real commit into trunk, I'll delete
> /checkpoints.
Great.
> I do wish we could have a point to drop patches, but as Justin pointed
> out, diff'ing of patches is ugly.
>
> There are no really lightweight branches though. You end up doing the
> same svnmerge.py thing to bring the branch up to date to test it,
> which happened to me on my branch, even though I wasn't really
> planning on going that far.
I'm not sure I understand. Why can't one just checkpoint in /branches
exactly as one would in /checkpoints?
If you want to test your changes, then you'd have to bring the branch
up-to-date no matter where it's located. In other words, I'm not sure
what it is you think you can do in /checkpoints that you can't do in
/branches.
> Having patch files are nice, because they "automatically" rebase
> themselves onto trunk, and are lightweight, since you can just do an
> "svn update", test your changes, make changes, "svn diff", and
> checkpoint the diff.
Oh, I see -- you want a place to literally store patch files? (I
hadn't realized that that was ever part of the /checkpoints plan.) If
it's just file storage, I'm not sure how the repository is better than
attachments in the issue tracker.
But anyway: you can get the diff from the branch, and this could
easily be automated with a script. The diff *is* there, implicitly.
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 18 03:11:21 2007