On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 02:55:17PM +0100, Christoph Bartoschek wrote: > Am Dienstag, 16. November 2010 schrieb Stefan Sperling: > > On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 01:43:35PM +0100, Christoph Bartoschek wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > what is the advantage of using > > > > > > ^/trunk/project/subproj...@40 subproject > > > > This new format does support relative URLs. > > > > > compared to > > > > > > -r 40 ^/trunk/project/subproject subproject > > > > This old format doesn't support relative URLs. > > You can only use full URLs (http://svn.example.com/...) with this format. > > > > See "svn help propset" for more information. > > svn help propset states that relative URLs also work for the old format.
Sorry, I got mixed up about the old and new formats. The new format is as follows: '[-rN] u...@m] PATH' The old format was: 'PATH [-rN] URL' The real difference between the old and new formats is that the URL cannot have a peg revision in the old format (support for peg revisions in svn:externals was added in r863820). This means that, using the old format, one cannot refer to URLs which have been deleted in the HEAD revision. > We currently use the old format with relative URLs: > > > "Relative URLs are supported in Subversion 1.5 and greater for > all above formats and are indicated by starting the URL with one > of the following strings" I've tried this using the actual old format (PATH [-rN] URL), and you're correct. Relative URLs are supported in either format. Thanks, Stefan
