Good question, I'm not really sure. To be honest I'm not the one wanting to
avoid them, I have a co-worker who thinks they are the plague. I don't see
how relative externals change much. What major benefits do they offer? Of
course, the biggest one I've found so far is that if the repository URL
changes the external links do not break. But other than that they are pretty
much the same as in 1.4.
One reason my co-worker dislikes them is because of branching. If he wants
to work on "engine" plus the project, he believes he will have to create 2
branches now instead of just 1. It's more of a tedium/management thing for
On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 2:04 AM, Ryan Schmidt <
> On Feb 21, 2009, at 23:45, void pointer wrote:
> I'm in a situation where I have an "engine" that several projects depend
>> on. I want to make each project independent and checkouts shall be performed
>> for each project. I have 2 ways I can go about this as far as I know:
>> I can perform a checkout of each project individually and have an external
>> link to the "engine". This is very conservative and as far as the functional
>> end-result is concerned, this is exactly what I want.
>> All projects could be "under" the "engine" and I could check out the
>> engine and use sparse directories to exclude the projects I am not
>> interested in.
>> In order to do option #2, which is ideal because I like to avoid the use
>> of externals that point internally to the same repository, [snip]
> Out of curiosity, why do you want to avoid externals that point to the same
> repository? It works fine. Especially with Subversion 1.5's new relative
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org].
Received on 2009-02-22 09:09:59 CET