On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 09:08:27AM -0700, Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 07/13/2010 05:15 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> >I think we should discourage use of the old syntax in both the output
> >of svn help and in the book. Diff to the help text below.
> >Would this improve things?
>
> Sounds good to me.
>
Give the man a cigar, he's captured what I was looking for.
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 8:15 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 05:57:24PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> I don't know why the syntax was reversed: it really looks like an
>> entirely unnecessary parsing complicatio
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 04:52:45PM -0500, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Jul 13, 2010, at 08:35, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
> > In the "-r rev" syntax, the rev is interpreted as a peg revision.
> > See
> > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c?revision=961970&view=mar
On Jul 13, 2010, at 08:35, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> In the "-r rev" syntax, the rev is interpreted as a peg revision.
> See
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c?revision=961970&view=markup
> lines 3026 to 3092, inside function svn_wc_parse_externals_descrip
On 07/13/2010 05:15 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 05:57:24PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
I don't know why the syntax was reversed: it really looks like an
entirely unnecessary parsing complication.
The new syntax looks more like 'svn checkout', so it's more natural
to
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 10:12:59AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I meant it as a more general question, not just in the context of
> externals. Is there some reason not to use the p...@rev style for
> every command or document that as the preferred method?
There's no reason not to always use p...@
On 7/13/2010 8:35 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
When the code has beem moved around. There's a description at
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s03.html which helps explain
it.
Mind you, I think if you're doing this kind of drilling back you're
begging or pain.
Yes I understand the situati
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 07:28:36AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >>On 7/12/2010 4:57 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >>>I understand that, and can understand that the peg revisions demanded
> >>>a new syntax.
> >>I re
Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 7/12/2010 4:57 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
I understand that, and can understand that the peg revisions demanded
a new syntax.
I realize that this is barely related to the topic, but is there any common
scenario
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 05:57:24PM -0400, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> I don't know why the syntax was reversed: it really looks like an
> entirely unnecessary parsing complication.
The new syntax looks more like 'svn checkout', so it's more natural
to use when you're already used to svn checkout.
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 7/12/2010 4:57 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>> >
>> I understand that, and can understand that the peg revisions demanded
>> a new syntax.
>
> I realize that this is barely related to the topic, but is there any common
> scenario where y
On 7/12/2010 4:57 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
I understand that, and can understand that the peg revisions demanded
a new syntax.
I realize that this is barely related to the topic, but is there any
common scenario where you wouldn't want to use peg revision syntax? In
every situation I c
On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Blair Zajac wrote:
> On 07/12/2010 04:42 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jul 9, 2010, at 17:13, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>
On 07/12/2010 04:42 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt
wrote:
On Jul 9, 2010, at 17:13, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
On Jul 9, 2010, at 14:08, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
What I wanted to do was have Subve
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt
wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2010, at 17:13, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Jul 9, 2010, at 14:08, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> What I wanted to do was have Subversion check out directories from
>> within th
-Original Message-
From: Nico Kadel-Garcia [mailto:nka...@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, 10 July 2010 8:13
To: Ryan Schmidt
Cc: Subversion
Subject: Re: Unclear syntax for relative addressing of svn:externals, on RHEL
5, subversion-1.6.12
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt
wrote
On Jul 9, 2010, at 17:13, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 2010, at 14:08, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>
>>> The allowable syntax for svn:externals is a bit unclear in the Redbook.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't I be able to set the svn:external to poin
On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt
wrote:
>
> On Jul 9, 2010, at 14:08, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>
>> The allowable syntax for svn:externals is a bit unclear in the Redbook.
>>
>> Shouldn't I be able to set the svn:external to point to a location in
>> my active repository, such as the b
On Jul 9, 2010, at 14:08, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> The allowable syntax for svn:externals is a bit unclear in the Redbook.
>
> Shouldn't I be able to set the svn:external to point to a location in
> my active repository, such as the below settings?
>
>svn propset svn:externals "release-1
The allowable syntax for svn:externals is a bit unclear in the Redbook.
Shouldn't I be able to set the svn:external to point to a location in
my active repository, such as the below settings?
svn propset svn:externals "release-1 ^/tags/release-1" .
I seem to be able to set such values, but u
20 matches
Mail list logo
