[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

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

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.


> -- 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
Received on Sun Dec 25 03:11:45 2005

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