can I bring up once again that repository-side linking should be
available? Is there an issue open for this?
The ability to link individual files, I would think, would solve many
issues where a "branch" really isnt.
In many cases you have most files which are actually meant to be the
same file, with only a handful of
changed files. Really, when "branching", I'd in most cases prefer the
/entire/ branch to be "linked", until
I commit a change /from the branch/"
that is:
- commit a bunch of files into trunk
- make a branch
- commit some changes to trunk
- updating the branch should automatically get those changes
- commit some changes to branch
- updating the trunk should /not/ get those changes
- commit some changes to trunk, effecting the same files as the
"modified" files in the branch
- updating the branch should /not/ get those changes.
Now, obviously, this is not at all what the current concept of
"branching" currently involves. The entire
concept is different. But the /purpose/ is the same. Creating a "linked
directory" would not be the ideal
situation for all cases. It does however sound, to me, like it could be
very useful (*selfishly I'd say this
would make developer branches much simpler the way I use them)
A few notes:
- I have never used CVS, or any dedicated versioning system other than
SVN. Please do not mention CVS
when replying to this message (this is generally meant to discourage
people from pretending "no other
versioning system supports anything like this!" is a valid response to
anything.
- This is not a question, please do not try to tell me how I can emulate
what I want. I know there are many
ways of getting things to work sortof-kindof-like-this. I am making a
suggestion because I know what,
specifically, would work.
- This is intended to promote discussion about different ways of doing
things, both in terms of "that idea
would be better if xxx" and in terms of "I have never run into any
situation which this idea would make
easier, because xxx"
Kalin KOZHUHAROV wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 14, 2005, at 6:55 PM, James McNeill wrote:
>>
>>> Locking a file only locks it in one place in the repository. If
>>> you have a
>>> trunk and a branch version of a non-mergeable (binary, usually)
>>> file, it is
>>> still possible for people to make changes to both copies
>>> simultaneously and
>>> end up with non-mergeable changes.
>>>
>>> Has anyone thought about ways to prevent this from happening?
>>
>>
>>
>> Why not lock both locations? You can run 'svn lock' on URLs if you
>> wish.
>
>
> What if there are 231 branches + trunk :-) You have to lock 232 URLs...
>
> TSVN (GUI) cannot handle that easily, I think.
>
> CLI cannot handle something like that, I guess (not tried):
> svn lock 'http://example.com/repos/mine/branches/*/doc/whatever.doc'
> end even then we usually have trunc/doc and branches/FOO/doc
>
> Having a "symlink" in the branch pointing to the trunk can solve all
> that.
> Not supported at the moment, I think.
>
> Kalin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Sep 15 06:54:51 2005