[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

ok to extend svn:externals syntax? -- was: Re: AW: [PATCH] commit --include-externals (v2)

From: Neels J Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2011 21:34:30 +0100

On 11/10/2011 07:10 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> As a community, we need to decide how we will handle file externals in
> general. Their clever implementation invites inconsistency.

I think there is general agreement (to the degree of common sense?) that
file and dir externals should behave the same way.

> I prefer that file externals be treated the same way as directory externals
> in every behavior possible. I find that easier to understand and account
> for myself, easier to explain to others. But I don't know that the rest of
> the devs think the same way about them that I do.

I would be fine with keeping current trunk: it changes file externals'
default behavior, so that they are treated like dir externals. So now it's:
never include any externals in commit recursion, unless --include-externals.

But I think we still do need to add a way of making an external get included
by default.

It was suggested to extend the svn:externals syntax, adding a flag that
marks externals that should behave differently. By now this seems to me to
be the best way out. What would that look like?

    [-rN] [-c] <URL>@P <PATH>

    -c = include in a recursive commit
    (positions of -r and -c exchangeable)

Does that sound like a good plan?

Received on 2011-11-10 21:35:07 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.