On 11/07/2011 07:14 PM, Miha Vitorovic wrote:
> On 7.11.2011 16:08, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
>> Can you argue up a case where one would want a non-revision-pegged external
>> excluded from commit? I'm reluctant to take simply previous externals
>> behavior as argument, because externals have always sucked so far.
> I can :)
> I spend my days writing "code" in LabVIEW. In short, it's a graphical
> programming language. Its files are a sort of combination of source code and
> binary. We have our projects organized around a common framework The
> framework is included in the projects using externals. Don't ask me why, but
> recompiling a project also recompiles some framework files. As a result this
> marks them as modified for Subversion. And when committing the project we
> really don't want to have those framework files committed as well.
Agreed -- now: would you be OK if I told you: to omit those dir externals
from commit, you have to either supply --exclude-externals, or you have to
put the external on a specific revision, say r123, like:
svn ps svn:externals "^/framework-src_at_123 bin/fw" .
Like that you could choose for each external: do I fixate it to a specific
revision, so that it is not committed automatically? Or do I leave out the
revision number, thus the external is included in commit recursion?
Whenever a newer framework should be used, you have to modify the revision
number in the externals definition and commit that. Subsequent updates then
bring the newer framework externals into all colleagues' WCs.
Would you be fine with that?
Received on 2011-11-08 02:50:28 CET