On Monday, November 26, 2007 3:26 PM -0500 "Bicking, David (HHoldings, IT)"
<David.Bicking@thehartford.com> wrote:
> Specifying a revision is problematic as well
> (http://subversion.tigris.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=users&msgNo=7016
> 5). When you commit a change to the external project, then update it,
> you "lose" your changes. This is why I suggested the binary references.
> At the moment, I feel externals should be used either for read-only
> source or for head revision reference with everybody understanding the
> consequences.
The issue in the link is ultimately the lack of clue that the external is a
separate module with its own revision history, and must be managed as such.
Requiring distribution by binary simply enforces this in a very visible
way. The linked message thread suggests adding other visual indicators in
environments (like Tortoise) that allow that to make it more obvious that
an external is in a separate administrative "compartment" of code and
should not be messed with piece-meal. Access to the external's source is a
documentation convenience, not a license to modify it. If the external
needs customization, it needs to be branched into the client project's
space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Nov 26 22:02:34 2007