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] @P
>
>-c =
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 09:34:30PM +0100, 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?
>
>[-rN] [-c] @P
>
>-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 ext
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:40 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
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 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 ne
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 the
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 a
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 ex
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
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
11 matches
Mail list logo
