Re: vendor branches: small mistake in docs
From: Tom Mornini <tmornini_at_infomania.com>
Date: 2005-12-20 23:01:40 CET
Understood, and you're right, It's a bit unclear:
"We quite literally copy new files on top of existing files, *perhaps
The example they give doesn't meet the the stated goal. :-)
-- -- Tom Mornini On Dec 20, 2005, at 4:31 PM, Adam Monsen wrote: > 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 04:10:20 2005
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.