On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:23 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:41:05PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> One other option would be, as was noted elsewhere in this thread, to
>> invent a new subcommand for tree comparisons, keeping only the
>> historical differences feature in "svn
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:41:05PM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> One other option would be, as was noted elsewhere in this thread, to
> invent a new subcommand for tree comparisons, keeping only the
> historical differences feature in "svn diff".
>
> That would solve the ambiguity, but it would (a)
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 07:21:04AM +0100, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Given all the above, I think we should find a way to warn users -- with
> a one-line note in the header of the diff output, for example? -- about
> the cases where the two-parameter diff could be ambiguous (which, I
> believe, is when
On 06.02.2013 07:21, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Given all the above, I think we should find a way to warn users --
> with a one-line note in the header of the diff output, for example? --
> about the cases where the two-parameter diff could be ambiguous
> (which, I believe, is when both parametrs are WC
On 06.02.2013 00:58, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> Joke aside, I'm not sure if there is a really good way to resolve
> these ambiguities. I don't really like that fact that we've got these
> --old and --new options in the first place. It seems like a crutch for
> a lack of a better syntax that can expre
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 12:30:05AM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Nah, it's fine, I think I'm starting to get convinced ;-). But it's
> still a pity that there is no relief (at least I don't see any) for
> confusion around the fact that 'svn diff WC-PATH1 WC-PATH2' doesn't
> diff WC-PATH1 and WC-P
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@apache.org]
> Sent: woensdag 6 februari 2013 00:08
> To: Johan Corveleyn
> Cc: Alexey Neyman; users@subversion.apache.org; Alfred Perlstein
> Subject: Re: FreeBSD project and subversion.
>
> On Tue, Fe
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:07 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:18:33PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Hmm, okay, but I would have preferred some more discussion before you
>> implemented this. It's not clear to me that this decreases the
>> surprises. I can perfectly imagin
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:18:33PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Hmm, okay, but I would have preferred some more discussion before you
> implemented this. It's not clear to me that this decreases the
> surprises. I can perfectly imagine just as many questions being asked
> on users@ with the ques
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 01:55:20 PM Lathan Bidwell wrote:
> On 02/05/2013 01:14 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:19:19AM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> >> There is one more weird issue with svn diff, see the script below. The
> >> issue is that "--old=A --new=B" is not
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:08 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Given what I said above, this can't be done in general (not if you
>> give two URLs or two wc paths, because then both synopsis 1 and 2 are
>> possible -- it would obviously
On 02/05/2013 01:14 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:19:19AM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
There is one more weird issue with svn diff, see the script below. The issue
is that "--old=A --new=B" is not opposite of "--old=B --new=A". I don't know
if it is a bug or another ambug
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:19:19AM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> There is one more weird issue with svn diff, see the script below. The issue
> is that "--old=A --new=B" is not opposite of "--old=B --new=A". I don't know
> if it is a bug or another ambuguity I am not aware of :)
>
> Here is the
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 12:59:43 PM Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> > On Monday, February 04, 2013 10:17:29 PM Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:54:21AM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> >> > Is there a reason why it is necessa
On Tuesday, February 05, 2013 05:08:40 PM Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> > Given what I said above, this can't be done in general (not if you
> > give two URLs or two wc paths, because then both synopsis 1 and 2 are
> > possible -- it wou
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 04:39:32PM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> What adds oil to the fire is that the error message, which claims that
> "Target
> lists to diff may not contain both working copy paths and URL". If instead it
> said that the supplied syntax is ambiguous and suggested to use --ne
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 12:59:43PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
> Given what I said above, this can't be done in general (not if you
> give two URLs or two wc paths, because then both synopsis 1 and 2 are
> possible -- it would obviously break backwards compatibility if we
> would now start errori
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> On Monday, February 04, 2013 10:17:29 PM Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:54:21AM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
>
>> > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 09:08:20 am Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
>> > > BTW, I went over one of FreeBS
On Monday, February 04, 2013 10:17:29 PM Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:54:21AM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 31, 2013 09:08:20 am Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > > BTW, I went over one of FreeBSD's svn wiki pages a while back, and added
> > > answers to open
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 11:54:21AM -0800, Alexey Neyman wrote:
> On Thursday, January 31, 2013 09:08:20 am Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > BTW, I went over one of FreeBSD's svn wiki pages a while back, and added
> > answers to open questions on this page:
> > https://wiki.freebsd.org/SubversionMissing
>
On Thursday, January 31, 2013 09:08:20 am Stefan Sperling wrote:
> BTW, I went over one of FreeBSD's svn wiki pages a while back, and added
> answers to open questions on this page:
> https://wiki.freebsd.org/SubversionMissing
Speaking of which:
Is there a reason why it is necessary to use "the s
;svn merge' using
> > version 1.7. We do 100's of merges a year at $WORK (with svn 1.6)
> > on a code base 10x that of FreeBSD -- it works.
>
> I've never had problems with merging downstream into work branches. I've
> only seen upstream merges blow up.
&
On 1/31/13 12:08 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:37:14AM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
FreeBSD has moved to Subversion a few years ago and it's worked
very, very well for us.
Thanks! That's encouraging to hear.
The one area where we are having issues is merging code fro
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:37:14AM -0500, Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> FreeBSD has moved to Subversion a few years ago and it's worked
> very, very well for us.
Thanks! That's encouraging to hear.
> The one area where we are having issues is merging code from project
> branches back into trunk.
>
>
FreeBSD has moved to Subversion a few years ago and it's worked very,
very well for us.
The one area where we are having issues is merging code from project
branches back into trunk.
The typical workflow is:
1) create project branch.
2) code code code.
3) sync from HEAD (this works grea
25 matches
Mail list logo
