On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (svn4)
<svn4_at_nedharvey.com> wrote:
>
> But I prefer to do this:
> svn co --depth=immediates $URL
> svn update --set-depth infinity project/trunk
> svn update --set-depth immediates project/branches
> svn update --set-depth infinity project/branches/eharvey
>
> Because in the latter "sparse" checkout, all the directories retain some context about the directories around them, and I can issue a single "svn update" at the top level in order to update both, and I won't get confused about the path relation between two independent checkouts, while I'm browsing around my local filesystem, and stuff like that.
>
> But as far as branching/merging is concerned, it's functionally equivalent.
We just think the opposite way about the relationship. My approach is
that the checked out copies are completely independent things and any
relationship that might exist is best maintained by separate
commit/update cycles and eventual merges - just as it would be if
different people were working on the separate copies. What commit
log message would ever be appropriate if you commit to both the trunk
and branch through an upper level directory that ties them together?
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell_at_gmail.com
Received on 2013-11-28 17:59:43 CET