On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Neels Janosch Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
> 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.
FWIW, at the API level you can already do this. I think we only
prevent it in the command line. In Subclipse we do all commits to
externals from the same repository in a single transaction (always
have) and it works fine. I *think* TortoiseSVN might provide this as
an option.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1543502
Received on 2009-04-04 17:16:51 CEST