On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Gavin Lambert <tsvn_at_mirality.co.nz> wrote:
> On 17/10/2013 06:13, Quoth Stefan Küng:
> > It's for vendor branches, which should not have local modifications.
> > IMHO if you have to change/modify an external lib, create a patch from
> > your changes and have that patch somewhere versioned as well. Then after
> > upgrading the lib (using the vendor branch command) you can apply the
> > patch again to that new version.
>
> I'm referring to
> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.advanced.vendorbr.html, which
> discusses the concept of "vendor branching" as it relates to Subversion.
>
> It is pretty much entirely about tracking and preserving custom local
> changes made to code supplied by external vendors. So this is what
> people will be expecting when they see something associated with SVN
> talking about vendor branching.
>
In my team (and other teams I have worked with), the "vendor branch" is
where we keep the 3rd party code as delivered. For local changes, we
use a "local_mods" branch where we maintain our local variant.
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=3066463
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2013-10-17 01:42:59 CEST