Re: vendor branches: small mistake in docs
From: Adam Monsen <haircut_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2005-12-20 22:31:37 CET
Thanks for your comments. First of all, I concur with your comments on how
On 12/20/05, Tom Mornini wrote:
Yes, this is what the previous paragraph suggests for this example: Quoted:
No mention of deleting files. Yes, the very-userful svn_load_dirs.pl is
If the files are literally replaced, there could well be some missing files.
You wouldn't want to remove *all* code in the trunk, that would wipe out
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 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.