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

Re: vendor branches: small mistake in docs

From: Adam Monsen <haircut_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2005-12-20 22:31:37 CET

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your comments. First of all, I concur with your comments on how
to properly use vendor branches. My thoughts are just on improving the
example given in the docs.

On 12/20/05, Tom Mornini wrote:
>
> I think you're assuming an overlay sort of replacement.

Yes, this is what the previous paragraph suggests for this example: Quoted:
"We quite literally copy new files on top of existing files, perhaps
exploding the libcomplex 1.1 release tarball atop our existing files and
directories."

No mention of deleting files. Yes, the very-userful svn_load_dirs.pl is
mentioned later, but I still believe the docs could be ever so slightly
improved.

If the files are literally replaced, there could well be some missing files.
>
> You'd have to remove all 1.0 files in the WC (avoiding .svn directories)
> and then overlay the 1.1.
>

You wouldn't want to remove *all* code in the trunk, that would wipe out
your customizations to the libcomplex code.

svn_load_dirs.pl or svk make this much easier.
>

Agreed.

--
> -- Tom Mornini
>
> On Dec 20, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Adam Monsen wrote:
>
> From http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s05.html ...
> "After replacing the 1.0 code with 1.1 code, svn status will show files
> with local modifications as well as, perhaps, some unversioned or missing
> files."
>
> While unversioned files may exist, there will be no missing files.
>
> --
> Adam Monsen
> http://adammonsen.com/blog/
>
>
>
>
--
Adam Monsen
http://adammonsen.com/blog/
Received on Sun Dec 25 03:11:45 2005

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