Re: Confusion over vender version updates.

"David Wyles" <dwyles@mediagrids.com> writes:

> In the SVN book (http://svnbook.red-bean.com/nightly/en/
> svn.advanced.vendorbr.html) the following is said for when updating a vender
> library with a new version:

[...]

> My issue is with the following:
>
> ?svn status will show files with local modifications as well as, perhaps, some
> unversioned or missing files?
>
>
>
> How can it show missing files when the previous paragraph said:
>
> ?We quite literally copy new files on top of existing files?

That paragraph is nonsense. One should remove the whole tree with the
exception of the .svn directory.

> Or Leaving the .svn directories intact and physically delete the previous
> version files from the file system (not subversion) and then copy the new
> version over the top. svn status will now show the deleted files with ?!?
> symbol.
>
>
>
> Is there a better way? And does the book need correcting?

Well, there is a better way, i guess. Check in the original tree into
Subversion. Remove your working copy. Export the original tree with

mkdir mytree
cd mytree
git-svn init svn://whatever
git-svn fetch

Now unpack your new tree here. Do
git-add .
git-commit
git-svn dcommit

Something like that. I am just a starter with git, so you'd better
experiment yourself. However, one of the main strengths of git is
that it deals with copied and renamed files and split files (move some
function elsewhere) while maintaining the history, without the user
having to tell git about it.

That is quite different to Subversion where you need to tell
Subversion what you are doing to the files if it is supposed to track
them. Using git for preparing your Subversion commits will manage to
track this kind of info for you.

-- 
David Kastrup
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org