On Monday 29 January 2007 10:45, Jan Hendrik wrote:
> Concerning Re: Checking out individual files
> Phyrefly wrote on 29 Jan 2007, 17:18, at least in part:
> > I may be misunderstanding something, but why can a single file
> > checkout (or many single file check-outs) not be managed by the
> > same .svn folder in the folder that contains that (or those)
> > file(s). After all, it only takes one .svn folder to manage all
> > the files in any folder in my working copy, even though they may
> > be at different rev's.
> > Sure, it would need to track the URL in the repo of each file,
> > but doesn't it do that anyway, to some extent?
> One thing is clear: the .svn overhead must know this is a selective
> checkout, and may not report the not checked out files as missing
> or even deleted.
Wow, I finally read through all of this thread (which was quite a
discussion at the end of January). It is rather disappointing that
there was never a valid explanation of why subversion did not already
allow me to say basically, "checkout 'svn://localhost/trunk' but
filter what I download so I only have ./proj1 and ./proj2".
The problem is all of these irrelevant explanations like above. Nobody
was ever asking that it _not_ create the needed ".svn", so still,
what was the problem? I was even able to use 'svn co -N', but it was
pitiful that I had to get the whole list and then go through and
delete the parts that I did not want cluttering this specific working
copy. I truely did not care that the resulting WC said some parts
were missing, in fact I preferred it to remind me. Again, so
explanation was given of why I should be worried about these details.
Fortunately, it sounds like "sparce directories" is exactly what
people need. I just hope when developing this feature, you Subversion
developers remember what I said above about needing to be reminded
that this is a "sparce directory".
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue Mar 27 19:30:08 2007