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

Re: Bug in book? (was: Re: Vendor branches)

From: Gili <junk_at_bbs.darktech.org>
Date: 2004-11-28 22:57:27 CET

        I think there is a doc bug there too. Thanks Karl.

Gili

On 28 Nov 2004 15:51:46 -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:

>"Gili" <junk@bbs.darktech.org> writes:
>> In the 1.1 documentation on vendor branches it states that one
>> should extract vendor branch 1.1 on top of 1.0
>> and then run the svn status on it. Right?

>Can you give us a URL for what you're reading? Probably you're
>referring to something in the book at svnbook.red-bean.com, but that
>is not the only Subversion vendor branch documentation around (it's
>not even the only book :-) ! ).

>In a private mail, EricTheElk <erictheelk@gmx.at> told me you were
>referring to this:

> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/svn-book.html#svn-ch-7-sect-4

>Is that right?

>If so, I don't understand the procedure there either. Specifically,
>the claim that "The missing files are files that were in 1.0 but not
>in 1.1, and on those paths we run svn remove" seems bogus. The files
>wouldn't be marked as missing, they'd just be untouched, as you
>pointed out.

>The instructions there seem to have been committed in r9659, based on
>material in r5111, both by cmpilato. I'm not sure how to interpret
>the instructions. I've rethreaded this mail to indicate that there
>might be a doc bug here. Mike?

>For now, I think you (Gili) might want to use the svn_load_dirs.pl
>script mentioned in that section. I haven't done much vendor branch
>work with Subversion so I don't have more specific advice to offer,
>sorry.

>-Karl

>> On 28 Nov 2004 13:43:43 -0600, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
>>
>> >"Gili" <junk@bbs.darktech.org> writes:
>> >> The documentation on vendor branches suggests that when
>> >> upgrading from revision 1.0 to 1.1 you should simply expand version
>> >> 1.1 on top of 1.0 and any unversioned files means that the files were
>> >> removed in 1.1. I don't understand how I'm supposed to see unversioned
>> >> files if they were removed in 1.1. I mean, the (1.0) files are still
>> >> there. I'd expect to see unchanged files. Ideally I'd like to remove
>> >> all files in 1.0 *except* the svn directories, then expand 1.1 on top
>> >> of it and then do a status command. Is there an easy way to do that?
>>
>> >What documentation are you looking at?
>>
>> >Are you talking about Subversion 1.0 and 1.1? I'm not sure what
>> >you're reading, but I don't see any reason to unpack one tree on top
>> >of the other. There's no reason to mix them.
>>
>> >---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> >To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
>> >For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Nov 28 23:01:22 2004

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