Re: 'Nested' working copies

"Kenneth Olving" <Kenneth.Olving@frameworx.com> writes:

> The Book describes that 'you could certainly setup a nested wc by
> hand ...' etc. In fact, that's what I'd like to do (since my tool
> already handles the nitty-gritty details, the 'user experience' is
> still good). But: will svn operations like svn status correctly
> recurse in that case, like it would if it had been set up by
> svn:externals stuff?

Nope, not yet. The plan for post-1.0 svn is to eventually *remove*
the svn:externals feature, and it replace it with this behavior. It
won't be trivial to implement.

> A follow up: in the case of svn:externals which brings in >1
> physical repo (or a manually nested repo as described above), will a
> commit be atomic across repos?

Nope. That's a Really Really Hard Problem. Instead, you should get
exactly one atomic commit per unique repository.

> I doubt it at this stage since I haven't seen any mention of TPC and
> distributed txns but...technically Berkeley DB seems to support
> XA. Is there any plans at all to provide XA capability in svn?
> Something like that would be absolutely fantastic, not only in the
> >1 repo case, but also to coordinate between, say, a repo commit and
> entries made into some XA aware db.

Yes, it would be nice, but no concrete plans yet. We're about 10
years behind Clearcase right now. :-)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Sep 23 20:10:37 2003