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

Re: ok to extend svn:externals syntax?

From: Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2011 12:29:05 +0100

On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM, Neels J Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On 11/11/2011 11:41 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
>>> I think there is general agreement (to the degree of common
>>> sense?) that file and dir externals should behave the same
>>> way.
>> +1 to that.
>>> 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.
>> So far so good; this is definitely an improvement over the previous
>> mixture.
> Yea. This thread should probably have stopped there, actually. Here is the
> long reason why:
> I like your argument placing the whole issue in the bigger picture,
> mentioning the other aspects (propset, revert, add, delete...). Thinking
> about those brings me back to a general awkwardness with dir externals,
> which I have not mentioned before to keep things simpler; it all comes from
> the fact that a dir external has its own distinct WC-root & wc.db:
> Simple case: If I say 'svn commit sub/dir/target', 'svn' goes to
> 'sub/dir/target', finds its "most immediate" WC-root and uses that to find
> metadata (e.g. externals definitions). Say the immediate WC-root is 'dir'.
> Extend above case: assume the WC-root in 'dir' actually belongs to a dir
> external, and its defining svn:externals prop is set on 'sub', which is the
> "original" WC-root. The target path is still 'sub/dir/target'.
> To distinguish between above two cases is not so trivial. If 'svn' gets
> passed a target path and finds its WC-root, the only way of knowing whether
> that is already the "original", top-most WC-root is to scan upwards for more
> WC-roots. If we find a WC-root above it, then even that WC-root may itself
> be an external checked out by another parenting WC-root.
> Furthermore, imagine a "skip-nesting" like this:
>  WC-root (0) --> dir-external (1) --> dir-external (2)
> The deeper dir-external (2) may actually be defined in (0)! I.e. an
> svn:externals definition for any given WC-root may be found on *any* level
> of WC-root above itself. Only when there is *no* WC-root found all the way
> to the file system root that has an externals definition for the target in
> question can we be sure that the target is not part of an external. Note
> that (1) treats (2) like an unversioned dir, because it does not know about
> the definition in (0). Only if a target path is part of (0) will svn treat
> (2) as the external that it is.
> Note that the *target path* is of relevance, not the CWD.
> This makes a general comprehensive-external-modes approach expensive:
> *Every* affected command has to scan upwards all the way to the FS root to
> find potential WC-roots with externals definitions. Now that's awkward.
> Under this aspect, it would make sense to combine dir externals' wc.dbs with
> their topmost WC-root, i.e. to always automatically store sub-WCs' metadata
> in their single ancestral WC-root. (Queue Bert)

Yeah, I had the same thought over the weekend. If you're looking at
the bigger picture, things like this start to stand out. I'm not an
expert at all on (the history of) externals, but it's obvious that the
fact that a dir-external is currently almost the same as an embedded
working copy is becoming awkward for doing more advanced stuff.

> Another solution would be to mark each WC-root that is a dir external
> explicitly with its defining WC-root, at the time that the external is being
> checked out. (A simple WC-id <--> parent WC-root abspath table)
> BTW, only then can --include-externals work as expected with "skip-nested"
> WCs (the situation above where "(0) defines (2)"), and only then can we
> prevent the user from committing an external marked "read-only third-party"
> when the user passes it as explicit target (which may happen by accident
> when using wildcards, for example).

Yep, or when you're cd'ing into the external, and committing from
there (the known issue of not being able to block commits from a
revision-pegged dir-external: if you're inside it, you don't know that
you're revision-pegged). So if we want our users to think of it as a
"read-only third-party" external, we better fix this behavior, so
first find a solution to this problem (a dir-external should be
different from an embedded working copy with some lipstick on --- or
the lipstick better be very good).

> So I guess a really good externals implementation is still some way further
> down the road. Looking at it in Julian's bigger picture, I think I'm not up
> to that ATM...
> Let me mention that I have thankfully noticed Johan's and Stefan's remarks
> (prefer separate flag instead of using just revision peg, and not use '-c'
> because it means '-rN:M'), and that I agree with both.
> Thanks everyone for the discussion! Heh, threads like this always remind me
> of Greg, some time back, telling me to stop spinning my wheels :)

I don't know what discussions took place about this in the past, but
maybe it's time to start looking at the bigger picture, and to start
thinking about externals-ng or something. Maybe not for 1.8, but 1.9
or later? (note: I'm not volunteering, just making some noise actually
-- sorry).

Other random thoughts:

- Sometimes it would be cool if the server knew about externals. So
you can just use the "links" in urls, or browse them with ls, ...
Full-fledged symlinks, so to speak.

- Maybe there should be an explicit difference between "intra-repos
externals" and "inter-repos externals". There is a lot of behavior
that's interesting for externals pointing to the same repository, that
is less interesting for really external externals (e.g. recursive
propset, including in commit, branching/tagging together with the
parent, ...).

- Non-revision-pegged externals that point to something inside the
same branch-root (if we ever invent such a concept) should be
branched/tagged together with the parent-wc. Only for relative
externals, or also for absolute?

- Externals relative to the branch-root, or referring to other
branch-roots by name in some namespace (if we ever have such a

- What to do with branching/tagging for non-revision-pegged externals
that point outside the branch-root, and to something that does not
belong to the same "branch-context" (again, if we ever have such a
concept), e.g. a link to trunk of another component/library/...

- How about merge support in relation to externals? I don't know too
much about it, but there should be a clear specification on the
interaction of merge and externals.

- Depth support for externals [1] (sometimes you can almost use them
as "viewspecs", defining the layout of a sparse working copy ---
except that you can't specify depth). Or should something like this be
part of a grown-up viewspec feature, which can then have interaction
with externals (like: you can include a "viewspec-definition" in you
external definition)?

- Depth support for externals, part 2: let the specified depth (on
'svn up' or 'svn co') have an effect on the externals that are the
target of the command. [2]

[1] http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3216 -
externals with --depth
[2] http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3311 -
externals are not created unless depth=infinity

Received on 2011-11-14 12:29:58 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.