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

RE: "Lightweight" externals - is it possible?

From: Lev Serebryakov <Lev.Serebryakov_at_jetbrains.com>
Date: 2005-10-14 13:49:20 CEST

RS> "svn up" does indeed need a second connection for the externals,
RS> because externals are always defined as an absolute URL, and could
RS> thus be to a completely different repository, as you know. There is
RS> an open feature request to allow relative links in external
RS> definitions, and perhaps then this will make it easy to share the
RS> primary connection. Or maybe not, I don't know.
  Really, I don't need exactly "externals". Something like symbolic links
will be Ok :)

>> (2) "svn ci" doesn't follow externals. So, If I change application
>> (add new
>> code) and change library (fix bug, which was found by this new
>> applictaion's
>> code), I need two "svn ci", or even more than two, because
>> different parts
>> of library (code, language files, etc) is injected in different
>> points in
>> application tree.
RS> As I understand it, that's intentional. Using your example, the
RS> library is a separate entity from the application which uses the
RS> library. So the correct course of action is to have the application
RS> use a *particular version* of the library
  Yes. In case of third-party library or library with well-defined API it is
Ok. But in my case library and application are both moving targets and
evolving together :(

  Really, something like "mount same repo in two places in WC" -- what I
need, and externals is not exactly this case...

Lev Serebryakov
JetBrains, Inc
"Develop with pleasure!"

To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Oct 14 13:51:42 2005

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.