I was thinking it was dev in the sense that I'm suggesting a change in
Subversion itself, which requires the developers to be involved in the
conversation. I'll stay on users though if that is where I should be.
Thanks.
Justin
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Why is this a dev issue? I mean does it pertain the development OF
> subversion? Or the use and development WITH subversion?
>
> Bye,
>
> Erik.
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Justin Johnson
> <eggsgloriouseggs_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > Forwarding to dev since this seems more like a dev issue. Thanks.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: JJ <eggsgloriouseggs_at_gmail.com>
> > Date: Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 12:29 PM
> > Subject: Re: Default value for global-ignores - Import excluded .so files
> > To: users_at_subversion.tigris.org
> >
> >
> > More info. Between 1.4.6 and 1.5.0 .so files were added to the default
> > values in
> >
> http://svn.collab.net/repos/svn/tags/1.5.0/subversion/include/svn_config.h
> .
> >
> > Again my point is that I think these default values are dangerous and
> that
> > nothing should be ignored by default.
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 11:58 AM, JJ <eggsgloriouseggs_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> I currently have the same issue as described in this thread.
> >>
> >> http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2008-11/0211.shtml
> >>
> >> I'm trying to import the JDK and all .so files are being quietly
> excluded
> >> from the import every time. The above thread points to .so files being
> >> included in the default value for global-ignore even though the book
> doesn't
> >> include it in the list, as can be seen at
> >>
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/svn.advanced.confarea.html#svn.advanced.confarea.opts
> .
> >>
> >> My thought is that having default ignore values is a mistake to begin
> >> with. It seems dangerous to me to have a default ignore value that
> prevents
> >> Subversion from importing certain files and having that default value
> >> quietly documented (ignoring the error in the doc for now) in an obscure
> >> section of the documentation or a config file that they wouldn't
> necessarily
> >> read for a long time.
> >>
> >> Does anyone else agree? Am I missing some important use case that drove
> >> this decision in the first place?
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >> Justin
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1199928
Received on 2009-02-20 19:38:57 CET