Tim Hill wrote:
> I think you mis-understood Duncan's suggestion. What he is saying (as I
> read it), is that you use svn branchaes to distinguish between these two
> cases, like this:
>
> -- Create a main branch (folder) that contains all the documents,
> current and archive. A checkout from this branch will clearly fetch
> *all* the documents, and so this folder is, in effect, a "full view" on
> the document set.
>
> -- Now, create a second "current" branch, and use the svn copy command
> to branch the set of files you need from the main branch into this
> current branch. A checkout from this branch will now only fetch the
> "current" documents, and svn sill not complain about missing files etc etc.
>
> -- Edit the current files in the current branch. After a commit, you can
> merge the changes back into the main branch, which will make them
> available in the *all* branch again.
>
> You can also use the same technique to edit/merge changes to the
> historical documents. In effect, you are using the branches as selected
> subsets of the full tree.
Thanks. I didn't look at it that way. SVN's view of branches as
directories is a bit unnatural to me.
I'll give this some thought. It might work.
--
Michael Eager eager@eagercon.com
1960 Park Blvd., Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-325-8077
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat May 20 03:36:55 2006