Geoff: you cannot point a single working copy item at more than one URL.
(well, unless you create two externals with the same target file. Don't
Nico: explain /exactly/ what you have been doing (best: a script(1)
transcript). I don't know if you are complaining about nested working
copies, or about running svn co $URL $dir where $dir is a subdir or root
of a working copy, or something else altogether.
Geoff Hoffman wrote on Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 18:20:41 -0700:
> This is a feature, yes. Subversion does allow your working copy to point to
> > 1 svn path.
> Sounds a lot like when you use svn:externals. This may be the more
> "standard" way of achieving what you're talking about.
> If you change code in [yourstuff] and [stuff pointing back to external's
> home] then when you commit (in NetBeans anyway) it will show you a warning
> about committing to multiple branches.
> You can also svn update a specific file/dir to a specific (older, non-HEAD)
> revision, though I've rarely if ever done this.
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 5:08 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > I just ran into a fascinating configuration where someone is doing
> > Subversion checkouts on top of existing Subversion checkouts. I'd
> > never even *THOUGHT* of pulling such a stunt, but it's apparently
> > workable.
> > I'm concerned, though, that any change in the source of the Subversion
> > checkout to a branch or tag will simply break things, or any
> > reloaction of the source repository component will also break things.
> > I'm also concerned that, should someone mix and match components
> > inside the working copy manually, things will break in fascinating
> > fashion, or that locally modified components will only be updated, not
> > actually replaced.
> > Has anyone been using this feature? It seems to work to do an "svn
> > checkout" on top of an existing working copy of the same URL or
> > earlier releases, but I've not tried rolling back the revision number
> > or other games. I could spend a bunch of time checkout out border
> > cases, but would welcome insights.
Received on 2011-07-12 04:21:54 CEST