John Peacock wrote:
> Ilyes Gouta wrote:
>> But I'm still a bit worried by the merge details. SVK seems to be
>> exactly what we need, but as a package it doesn't have the visibility
>> other VCSs have...
>
> FWIW, SVK handles vendor branches without breaking a sweat. In fact, I
> have mirrors of multiple different projects that I have occasion to work
> on (including Subversion itself) and updating my local branch is usually
> as simple as:
>
> $ svk pull
>
> (from within a working copy of my local branch). This retrieves all of
> the updates from the mirror, commits it to the local mirror, then merges
> those changes to the local branch. If there is a conflict during the
> merge (which is always possible), I've got SVK set to popup a graphical
> merge editor (kdiff3 or meld), so it hardly takes any time at all.
>
> The one caveat I will mention is that if someone renames a file and
> changes it in a single commit in Subversion, then SVK can get confused
> when trying to merge to the local branch. To resolve this, I merely
> have to perform the rename in my local branch and commit it. After
> that, the merge from upstream can proceed automatically.
>
> Plus, the SVK repository is an ordinary Subversion repository, so
> technically you can host that internally using normal Subversion
> server/clients (be sure to never commit directly to the mirrored paths
> though).
Speaking of 'less visible' packages... Has anyone looked at pushmi? I
happened to notice the session mentioned in the upcoming OSCON
(http://en.oreilly.com/oscon2008/public/schedule/detail/2505) but
otherwise I don't see much publicity. Is it like SVK with more
attention to being able to use the replicated repository directly?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell_at_gmail.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-05-14 19:15:12 CEST