On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 17.07.2012 22:55, Julian Foad wrote:
>> Branko Čibej wrote:
>>> On 17.07.2012 21:08, Julian Foad wrote:
I know it would be nice and convenient if it was defined centrally
here, but ... I dunno, others may disagree, but I think
On 17.07.2012 22:55, Julian Foad wrote:
> Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 17.07.2012 21:08, Julian Foad wrote:
>>> I know it would be nice and convenient if it was defined centrally
>>> here, but ... I dunno, others may disagree, but I think we need a much
>>> more rigorous definition before I'd be
Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 17.07.2012 21:08, Julian Foad wrote:
>> I know it would be nice and convenient if it was defined centrally
>> here, but ... I dunno, others may disagree, but I think we need a much
>> more rigorous definition before I'd be happy to consider it.
>
> Thank you, Julian, fo
On Jul 17, 2012 1:27 AM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>
> On 17.07.2012 03:59, Greg Stein wrote:
>...
> They're not, to me. This looks like another case of having an "obviously
> correct" solution in hand without having thought about the ramifications.
Oh, I know what you mean, and tend to agree. I'm co
On 17.07.2012 21:08, Julian Foad wrote:
> I know it would be nice and convenient if it was defined centrally
> here, but ... I dunno, others may disagree, but I think we need a much
> more rigorous definition before I'd be happy to consider it.
Thank you, Julian, for putting it so clearly.
--
Ce
Bert Huijben wrote:
> On the Berlin hackathon the suggestion was raised that it might help that we
> standardize a new 'svn:branch' property to give tooling a hint on what
> directories are branches and which aren't. [...]
>
> Client tools like TortoiseSVN, Subclipse, AnkhSVN could really use some
> -Original Message-
> From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 17 juli 2012 02:58
> To: C. Michael Pilato
> Cc: Bert Huijben; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: Standardizing a 'svn:branch' (boolean) property
>
>
On 17.07.2012 07:14, Trent Nelson wrote:
[a description of Enversion]
Thanks, Trent -- this was a very good description.
So what we have here is a tool that provides additional branch semantics
on top of Subversion's data model and controls commits to protect the
repository against several kinds
On 17.07.2012 03:59, Greg Stein wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2012 1:18 PM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>> ...
>> Please describe the set of use cases you want to address, propose how
>> you think this new property can solve them, and at the very least,
>> explain how the solution will affect: a) the command-line
On 7/17/12 1:14 AM, "Trent Nelson" wrote:
> 7. Once we detect a root is affected, evn:roots is updated
>accordingly. In trac@r175, a new tag is created. Specifically,
>trunk@175 is copied to /tags/trac-0.5-rc1. That results in two
^
s/trunk@175/trunk@174
On 7/16/12 8:57 PM, "Johan Corveleyn" wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:33 PM, C. Michael Pilato
>wrote:
>> On 07/16/2012 08:11 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> As we couldn't think of a usage of the content I would suggest that we
>>>just
>>> always set the property to '*', just like how we handle
On Jul 16, 2012 1:18 PM, "Branko Čibej" wrote:
>...
> Please describe the set of use cases you want to address, propose how
> you think this new property can solve them, and at the very least,
> explain how the solution will affect: a) the command-line client, b)
> every other client, c) branching
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 3:33 PM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 08:11 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> On the Berlin hackathon the suggestion was raised that it might help that we
>> standardize a new 'svn:branch' property to give tooling a hint on what
>> directories are branches and which ar
> -Original Message-
> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpil...@collab.net]
> Sent: maandag 16 juli 2012 17:18
> To: Bert Huijben; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: Standardizing a 'svn:branch' (boolean) property
>
> On 07/16/2012 09:41 AM, St
> -Original Message-
> From: C. Michael Pilato [mailto:cmpil...@collab.net]
> Sent: maandag 16 juli 2012 21:52
> To: Daniel Shahaf
> Cc: Bert Huijben; 'Branko Čibej'; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: Standardizing a 'svn:branch' (boolean
On 16.07.2012 19:51, Bert Huijben wrote:
> I'm not saying directories aren't branches. I'm just suggesting that
> we give tools a hint to what directories are used as branches.
I said that directories /aren't/ branches. :)
> And I'm not alone in this wish. Subclipse and at least one other client
On 07/16/2012 03:41 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Bert Huijben wrote on Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 19:51:59 +0200:
>> A simple question this 'might' help answer is:
>>
>> I have a project file ^/trunk/src/Ankh.Package/Ankh.Package.csproj, which my
>> user wants to check out. Which directory level should we
Bert Huijben wrote on Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 19:51:59 +0200:
>
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com]
> > Sent: maandag 16 juli 2012 19:08
> > To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: RFC: Standardizi
[Philip Martin]
> There needs to be a way to create the initial branch, i.e. mkdir as well
> as copy.
In fact, that's really _all_ that should be needed. If your 'trunk'
has a svn:branch property, and you copy or tag it with 'svn copy', the
target will get the same property. An explicit 'svn co
> -Original Message-
> From: Branko Čibej [mailto:br...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: maandag 16 juli 2012 19:08
> To: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: Standardizing a 'svn:branch' (boolean) property
>
> On 16.07.2012 14:11, Bert Huijben wrote:
&g
On 16.07.2012 14:11, Bert Huijben wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On the Berlin hackathon the suggestion was raised that it might help that we
> standardize a new 'svn:branch' property to give tooling a hint on what
> directories are branches and which aren't. To make sure we don't forget
> about this idea
On Jul 16, 2012, at 11:17 AM, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 09:41 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:10PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
>>> Open questions:
>>> * 'svn:branch' or maybe 'svn:root'?
>>
>> I'd prefer svn:branch but I don't care strongly.
>
> And I "
On Jul 16, 2012, at 8:11 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On the Berlin hackathon the suggestion was raised that it might help that we
> standardize a new 'svn:branch' property to give tooling a hint on what
> directories are branches and which aren't.
Automatic branch ("root") identific
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 11:17:58AM -0400, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> On 07/16/2012 09:41 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > I would favour a new 'svn branch' subcommand which is equivalent
> > to 'svn copy' including a prop-add of 'svn:branch' at the copy target.
>
> Hrm. Here's where I think we see
On 07/16/2012 09:41 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:10PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> Open questions:
>> * 'svn:branch' or maybe 'svn:root'?
>
> I'd prefer svn:branch but I don't care strongly.
And I "svn:branch-root".
>> * Which UI do/should we provide in 'svn'
>> sv
Stefan Sperling writes:
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:10PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
>> Open questions:
>> * 'svn:branch' or maybe 'svn:root'?
>
> I'd prefer svn:branch but I don't care strongly.
>
>> * Which UI do/should we provide in 'svn'
>> svn cp --branch URL
>> Performs a copy and makes
> -Original Message-
> From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
> Sent: maandag 16 juli 2012 15:42
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: RFC: Standardizing a 'svn:branch' (boolean) property
>
> On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02
On Mon, Jul 16, 2012 at 02:11:10PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
> Open questions:
> * 'svn:branch' or maybe 'svn:root'?
I'd prefer svn:branch but I don't care strongly.
> * Which UI do/should we provide in 'svn'
> svn cp --branch URL
> Performs a copy and makes sure there is a svn:branch property
On 07/16/2012 08:11 AM, Bert Huijben wrote:
> On the Berlin hackathon the suggestion was raised that it might help that we
> standardize a new 'svn:branch' property to give tooling a hint on what
> directories are branches and which aren't. To make sure we don't forget
> about this idea I just drop
Hi,
On the Berlin hackathon the suggestion was raised that it might help that we
standardize a new 'svn:branch' property to give tooling a hint on what
directories are branches and which aren't. To make sure we don't forget
about this idea I just drop this on the list with the information
30 matches
Mail list logo
