We used those two below but not the PEG (@NNN), basically because I understood the PEG as something different.
-rNNNN http://svn.example.com/example-path/example-file.ext example-file.ext example-file.ext -rNNNN http://svn.example.com/example-path/example-file.ext I guess I have to reread the PEG section. Both behaviours would be fine for me: 1. As it is or seems to be: svn checkout -> to externals revision, svn update (without --ignore-externals)-> HEAD or command line revision -r N But then I would like to have means to: 1) prevent the update for pinned externals 2) get warned or asked if I really want to update, since it seems to easy to update such externals to the HEAD without recognising 3) update the pinned externals back to the stated externals revision, without having to checkout everything 4) possibly have 3) in an interactive mode. 2. The externals revsions -r or ev. @N pins the external absolutely and unconditionally to the revision what ever update command I run. This would imply that I first have to un-pin it in svn:externals, which is much enough a conscious action to me, not to be done by accident. ---Roman > -------- Original-Nachricht -------- > Datum: Fri, 06 May 2011 12:39:53 +0200 > Von: "Branko Čibej" <br...@e-reka.si> > An: Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> > CC: Roman Kellner <muzu...@gmx.net>, Bert Huijben <b...@qqmail.nl>, > julian.f...@wandisco.com, dev@subversion.apache.org > Betreff: Re: Feature wish/request: [--externals MODE] switch on update > > On 06.05.2011 12:25, Philip Martin wrote: > > Branko Čibej <br...@e-reka.si> writes: > > > >> On 06.05.2011 12:08, Philip Martin wrote: > >>> "Roman Kellner" <muzu...@gmx.net> writes: > >>> > >>>> But what about the features I wish/request. Do they somehow exist, > are they > >>>> in the pipeline or do you consider them rubbish? > >>> You didn't answer the question about why using '-r N' or '@N' in an > >>> external does not do what you need. If your client doesn't respect > the > >>> revision in an external then your client has a bug. > >> Yes he did answer that question. It's because, when you're inside the > >> part of the WC that was created by the external, and you do an "svn > up", > >> the client doesn't see the external definition and updates to HEAD. > Even > >> the book says so. > > How would his feature request fix that? > > His feature request is basically to fix that, although I don't agree > with the request itself. It'd be quite enough to just fix that > behaviour, there's no new UI required, IMO. > > -- Brane > -- NEU: FreePhone - kostenlos mobil telefonieren und surfen! Jetzt informieren: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/freephone
