Neels J Hofmeyr wrote on Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 21:34:30 +0100:
It was suggested to extend the svn:externals syntax, adding a flag
that marks externals that should behave differently. By now this
seems to me to be the best way out. What would that look like?
[-rN] [-c] URL@P PATH
-c =
Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
I think there is general agreement (to the degree of common
sense?) that file and dir externals should behave the same
way.
+1 to that.
I would be fine with keeping current trunk: it changes file
externals' default behavior, so that they are treated like
dir
On 11/08/2011 08:55 AM, Markus Schaber wrote:
Hi,
Von: Miha Vitorovic [mailto:miha.vitoro...@gmail.com]
On 7.11.2011 16:08, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
Can you argue up a case where one would want a non-revision-pegged
external excluded from commit? I'm reluctant to take simply previous
externals
On 11/10/2011 10:29 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
It seems to me that excluding only those externals (dir file) that are
fixed to a specific revision is the best solution. My only worry are all
those users out there expecting dir externals to be excluded always.
That's why I'm asking: if I
On 11/10/2011 04:40 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 11/10/2011 10:29 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
It seems to me that excluding only those externals (dir file) that are
fixed to a specific revision is the best solution. My only worry are all
those users out there expecting dir externals to be
On 11/10/2011 11:15 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
On 11/10/2011 04:40 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
On 11/10/2011 10:29 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
It seems to me that excluding only those externals (dir file) that are
fixed to a specific revision is the best solution. My only worry are all
those
On 11/10/2011 07:10 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
As a community, we need to decide how we will handle file externals in
general. Their clever implementation invites inconsistency.
I think there is general agreement (to the degree of common sense?) that
file and dir externals should behave
On 11/10/2011 03:34 PM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
It was suggested to extend the svn:externals syntax, adding a flag that
marks externals that should behave differently. By now this seems to me to
be the best way out. What would that look like?
The next change we make to the externals syntax
On 11/10/2011 09:39 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
The next change we make to the externals syntax needs to be to add an
explicit #format = 3 header to it so we can stop trying to deduce the
format the user intended!
now that's cumbersome. a footer would be much nicer. ;)
~Neels
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:40 PM, C. Michael Pilato cmpil...@collab.net wrote:
On 11/10/2011 10:29 AM, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
It seems to me that excluding only those externals (dir file) that are
fixed to a specific revision is the best solution. My only worry are all
those users out there
Hi,
Von: Miha Vitorovic [mailto:miha.vitoro...@gmail.com]
On 7.11.2011 16:08, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
Can you argue up a case where one would want a non-revision-pegged
external excluded from commit? I'm reluctant to take simply previous
externals behavior as argument, because externals
11 matches
Mail list logo
