On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 4:28 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:09:14PM -0800, Jeff Mott wrote:
>> I just discovered that using --ignore-ancestry fixed the problem. This
>> caused SVN to update rather than replace my working copy.
>
> What is the a
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 6:32 PM, Jeff Mott wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:49:56PM -0800, Jeff Mott wrote:
>>> I've recently needed to track changes for vendor code drops, so I read
>>> the SVN book&#x
On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 4:00 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 09:49:56PM -0800, Jeff Mott wrote:
>> I've recently needed to track changes for vendor code drops, so I read
>> the SVN book's vendor branches chapter. But I'm not entirely happy
>
I've recently needed to track changes for vendor code drops, so I read
the SVN book's vendor branches chapter. But I'm not entirely happy
with part of the procedure, so I'd like to talk it out and, I hope,
find a better way.
The part I hope to improve is when I have a versioned code drop in the
/v
