David,
Although I understand your position, I am thinking of my situation:
I build subversion from trunk almost three times a week. In this case
there is a build process, so that the -DVERSION="`svnversion .`"
solution works, but it is this kind of situations (but without the build)
that I am thinking of...
bye,
Erik
> It might just be my opinion, but...
>
> I think this is a very overengineered solution to a problem, and will
> add lots of additional complexity in the working copy code.
>
> If the point is to have a version for customer/user reporting, why not
> base it on repository path rather than revision number? Is making a tag
> and switching over to it really that hard? With a tag you are reporting
> every version of every file, and tagging implies a release process.
>
> Developers who insist on giving customers/users non-tagged code which is
> potentially from a mixed-revision repository should just write a script
> to supply the version number during their deployment through svnversion.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> -David Waite
>
> e.huelsmann@gmx.net wrote:
>
> >>>Suppose the file with the expandable keyword is "conf/revfile" (below
> >>>trunk/ or tags/whatever/ or branches/whatever/, as the case may be). To
>
> >>>build a release that includes one patch, the buildmeister does:
> >>>
> >>> cd trunk/ # or branches/whatever, or ....
> >>> svn up -r 1234 # includes conf/revfile, so it gets 1234
> >>> svn up -r 2345 src # excludes conf/revfile, so it doesn't
> change?
> >>>
> >>>Now revfile says "1234", but svnversion on "." would say "1234:2345",
> >>>which I think is not what anyone would want.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>That is just the same as if you had a manually maintained "VERSION.TXT"
> >>file in the root of the project, and updated only a sub-tree.
> VERSION.TXT
> >>would be out of date. If you put VERSION.TXT in the sub-tree, then it
> >>
> >>
> >would
> >
> >
> >>have been updated ... regardless of whether it was manually maintained
> or
> >>using this new keyword. The system works exactly as designed and as
> >>expected. I think that is reasonable behaviour.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Yay Julian! Go!
> >
> >Well on a serious note: This is what I wanted to add to subversion when I
> >first started hacking it. (Only a few months ago) I never got round to
> doing
> >it,
> >but I do think this is reasonable, especially where the argument of the
> >keyword
> >is '.'.
> >
> >bye,
> >
> >
> >Erik.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
--
COMPUTERBILD 15/03: Premium-e-mail-Dienste im Test
--------------------------------------------------
1. GMX TopMail - Platz 1 und Testsieger!
2. GMX ProMail - Platz 2 und Preis-Qualitätssieger!
3. Arcor - 4. web.de - 5. T-Online - 6. freenet.de - 7. daybyday - 8. e-Post
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Sep 8 23:04:22 2003