On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Neels Janosch Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 9:06 PM, Neels Janosch Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
> [...]
>>> (( 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... ))
>>
>> 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.
>
> Well, that should be a pretty easy job, then. What a bummer that no-one took
> a look at it before releasing file externals in 1.6.0.
How do file externals work? I thought they did process as commits?
Since they are really just switched paths in the same repos, it seems
like it would anyway. Did you mean why did someone not do the same
for directory externals?
> In any case, I think it would be good to disallow commits to file externals
> with fixed revisions (e.g. by 1.6.1).
Yes, we do not try to do that in Subclipse, but it does seem a
reasonable idea. Perhaps the items ought to even be made read-only in
the filesystem?
> And then hopefully have a unified commit behaviour for file- and
> dir-externals with a commandline switch by 1.7.
>
> Does that sound about right, like it is likely to happen that way?
I'd be in favor of it, but I have a feeling you will get resistance to
allowing the command line to commit directory externals.
--
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1545645
Received on 2009-04-04 22:07:47 CEST