Re: Excluding directories on a sticky basis

On Tuesday 04 January 2005 13:59, Rainer Müller wrote:
> Jonas Widarsson wrote:
> It would be better to copy this into the list for archiving.
Sorry... I like bbcode ;)

> I don't see the reason why you don't want to check out a sub-directory
> if you check out the directory.

I have a PHP framework that is being actively developed ATM.
I have three "customers" having files in the themes subdirectory and in the
modules subdirectory. Since everything depends on communication with my
template engine and the framework front controller, I need to update the
subdirs according to changes in the framework logic. (I am terribly sad to
not have had the brains to code it right from the beginning.)

So, first need is that version control is always managing it all (obviously no
problem with subversion nor cvs...)

Today I use cvs checkout to get a version running on the server. I think it is
a clever idea, because even if I am away from My computer I can ssh to the
server and commit mini-fixes and just update them to my real development
environment later.

I want to be able to checkout the framework for one customer excluding all
themes and special module files belonging to other customers that have
nothing to do with those files. YET keep the installation under version
control. This would be silently disallowing certain subdirs to be checked out
or updated, deliberately breaking the tree in favour of site integrity.

I want to at the svn server end keep everything in a synced repository but
preferably checkout things in a way that the customer's never see the trace
of alien code in ther file tree.

Ah, let me add - the "customers" aren't themselves hosting the sites. I do. If
I should sell them releases, I would of course export them a copy, but it
this moment, I manage the running sites as well.

> Maybe you could also use something like this:
>
> svn co http://example.com/svn/dir1 http://example.com/svn/dir2 ~/workcp/
> It will checkout to ~/workcp/dir1 and ~/workcp/dir2

Thanks, that would be the verbose exercise of an svn:externals definition,
wouldn't it?

However, according to the book, the client would NOT recurse into those
directories since they come from different repositories, which would be
perfectly sufficient for me, and probably a lot better than the exclusion
approach. Maybe I can force svn to recurse in some way you graciously
suggest? ;)

Otherwise you've already impressed me enough to move from CVS and recommend
subversion to everyone I know. Copy and move capabilities and consistent
revision numbers appeal very much to me.

-- 
Jonas Widarsson
tel: +46 271 152 00 - tel: +46 271 121 42 (hemma/home) - gsm: +46 70 539 64 79
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org