Hi all,
for an article on Subversion 1.6 we're writing, I'd like to know what the
intentions are with the externals feature.
I notice that there is a difference in behaviour: the new file externals are
included in a recursive commit, while directory externals simply aren't.
What are the intentions? Some users out there seem very eager to have some
way of allowing recursive commits of external directories. Is that probable
to ever happen?
(( Testing around, I found that it makes no practical sense to commit an
external when it has an explicit revision number. So, I for myself am
thinking it'd be good to a) handle both directory and file externals the
same way, by b) excluding them from commit recursion if and only if they
have a fixed revision number. Meaning that revision-less dir-externals would
be included in recursive commits, while "revision-ful" file-externals
wouldn't. It seems to cater for all the needs: If I want a patchy working
copy to commit in, I don't supply revision numbers and am working on HEAD.
Makes sense. If I want to have a fixated snapshot of something, I provide a
revision number and can't commit on it. Makes sense!
I'd even go as far as warning about any modifications made on externals with
a fixed revision number... ))
Thanks for any hints and pressure readings.
~Neels
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1537605
Received on 2009-04-04 03:06:54 CEST