What does WC-NG stand for? Working Copy ... with only 1 .svn folder
instead of nested .svn folders at every level, is that correct?
I'll tell you the one way in which that might not completely solve
the use-case that I have in mind, and that is doing a series of
partial exports from multiple repositories. Basically I am building
up a server from a series of images that come from different
repositories due to ownership, permission and licensing
limitations. So I might run a series of 10 or 20 exports from
different sections of various repositories, to build up a given
server (e.g. appliance). Using export, there are no conflicts, even
if some of those exports put files into the same target
folders. (Take as a worst-case example, targeting the
c:\windows\system32 folder. )
Would your 1.7 WC-NG feature be okay with a shared .svn folder (e.g.
c:\.svn\ ) with details about exports relating to multiple
repositories? If yes, *great*.
I suspect that non-Windows users would just use yum or equivalent for
my use-case... meanwhile I came up with this process of layering
exports of sections of repositories in order to build up appliances
that are similar in some-but-not-all ways.
For anyone who is feeling +1 about the feature, I'd be interested in
any suggestions for a better name for the flag. The reasoning behind
the verbosity was that people could simultaneously realize the
usefulness (skip large unchanged files) and the danger (what if a
real change did not change the byte size ( bad luck )).
Thank you for your consideration.
At 10:48 PM 7/26/2010, you wrote:
>that WC-NG is just around the corner, I don't think it's worth it. It
>will be much easier and (hopefully) just as fast to use a 1.7 working
>copy, and ignore the single .svn meta data directory if you want to.
Received on 2010-07-27 06:56:39 CEST