RE: Branch/switch/merge question
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com] > > Not sure what you mean about with sparse and recursive checkouts or > why you'd start with /. If there is one project in the repository > you would normally just check out /trunk. Or with multiple projects, > /project_name/trunk. ... see below... > You can have multiple checkouts that don't really affect each other, Yes, that's what I'm talking about. I know I can do this: mkdir trunk ; svn co $URL/trunk trunk mkdir eharvey; svn co $URL/branches/eharvey eharvey 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.
Re: Branch/switch/merge question
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Edward Ned Harvey (svn4) 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 lesmikes...@gmail.com
Re: Hardware requirements for windows subversion
On 27/11/2013 16:03, Pavel Lyalyakin wrote: > Hello Ram, > [snip] > > If you want to start using Subversion server right now, then take a > closer look at VisualSVN Server. It installs in no time and is very > convenient to configure and manage. In fact, VisualSVN Server works > out of the box and does *not* require you to bother with complex > configuration. You can get the latest VisualSVN Server version at > http://www.visualsvn.com/server/download/ For some balance, ;), other "simple" Windows Subversion server packages exist, like: UberSVN: http://www.wandisco.com/ubersvn/ CollabNet Subversion Edge: http://www.collab.net/downloads/subversion Cheers, John -- John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot. http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake
Re: UNS: Re: Branch/switch/merge question
On Thu, 28 Nov 2013 10:58:08 +, Les Mikesell wrote: ... > 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? svn commit -m 'just to confuse the russians' Seriously, -m 'fix #1234' if separate fixes are needed because of code divergence. Occasionally. :-) Andreas -- "Totally trivial. Famous last words." From: Linus Torvalds Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2010 07:29:21 -0800
