> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ruhe Julian [mailto:jruhe_at_axway.com]
> Sent: vrijdag 22 juni 2012 14:57
> To: Stephen Butler
> Cc: Daniel Shahaf; users_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: AW: Issue: svn:externals syntax does not accept -rHEAD
>
> Hello Daniel,
>
> >The update command accepts -rHEAD, but not necessarily -rHEAD plus peg
> revision. HEAD is a keyword for "latest in the repository", not "latest
in the
> history of URL_at_REV". If an item has been deleted, it's no longer part of
the
> >HEAD, as you've seen.
>
> That is not the point. I did not state this. In the svnbook in the chapter
> regarding peg revisions you can find a clear statement that recreated
objects
> on the same path are not the same things. That's why it's perfectly valid
to
> ask "give me the HEAD version of an object existing @peg." And the result
> should be either
> a) if the same object exist on HEAD on that path => give that object
> b) if no object exists on HEAD that path => give me an error
> c) if another object (recreated) after deletion exists on HEAD that path
=>
> give me an error
>
> This is how svn checkout (svn co -rHEAD path_at_peg) works. I do not
> understand why I should not be allowed to advise svn:externals to do the
> same. Just to follow the specification of operating revision and peg
revsions.
>
> > It sounds like you want Subversion to search for the latest revision in
the
> history of URL_at_REV. What if that item was deleted and later restored?
>
> No. Not at all. Forward history of an object is another topic.
>
>
> >> -rHEAD
> >> ^/mapping_services/global/testing/full_test/globalresource6.xml_at_109
> =>
> >> gives me an error on svn up if gr.xml6_at_109 does no longer exist on
> >> HEAD ^/mapping_services/global/testing/full_test/globalresource6.xml
> >> (your proposal) => gives me the wrong object I am not interested in
>
> >Who put the wrong object there? If you can solve that organizational
> problem, the technical problem outlined above will no longer be relevant,
> and your Subversion usage will be much simpler and more robust.
>
> Wrong object? I just said that two objects on the same path are different
to
> me. And I actually just want an answer on question "Does the file external
> path_at_peg exist on HEAD?". Answer: "Yes" or "No" or technically "object
> returned" or "error".
>
> I cannot even answer this question with the given syntax. What is so
difficult
> to allow -rHEAD on svn:externals?
We don't have forward history searching in Subversions filesystems. So
allowing this option requires extending the filesystem layer.
And given that usually -r follows copies, there could be multiple answers,
which makes designing this option in the filesystem hard and the result
inconclusive.
Bert
Received on 2012-06-25 20:09:19 CEST