Stephen Kennedy wrote:
>> What do you want to open an issue for, exactly? Can you be specific?
>> We already have issues {1258, 1336, 937, 1703, 1935, 1448, 1167}
>> documenting deficiencies in the 'svn:externals' feature.
>
> Hi Ben,
>
> Thats a good list - Issue 1336 seems to be the closest in functionality
> and
> in fact each one is relevant to some extent, but none covers it entirely.
>
> I would like an issue open for the feature:
> "functionality of cvs modules with subversion"
>
> 1) intra-tree links (1336-"relative paths")
> 2) sensible copy/tag semantics for relative links (1336-"relative paths"
> not
> really 1258-"tag externals" which seems more focused about inter-tree)
> 3) sensible commit semantics for relative links (1167-"recursive commit"
> 1448-"one connection per external"). Not mentioned is that intra-tree
> commits
> should be merged so that they use a single connection and are atomic.
> 4) sensible status/diff/etc semantics (959-"svn status") Similary
> intra-tree
> status should be merged (and thus streamy). Also the "X" should be
> supressed
> for internal links.
>
> Looking over that list again, there seems to be quite a mismatch between
> "real" external links and internal links so the issue could equally be
> called
> "'svn:internal' directory property".
I agree that we should have an issue tracking the fact that CVS can do
things that Subversion cannot w.r.t. modules.
Before filing it, I think we should have a discussion about exactly how we
want to rectify this problem. This should be on the dev@ list, because some
developers don't read users@.
I think a good way to start defining what we need would be by examples of
situations which CVS modules can handle, but Subversion cannot.
Ma.x
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 20 21:27:50 2004