On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:53:36 -0400 (EDT), Jon Daley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006, phil wrote:
>> On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 14:12:49 -0400 (EDT), Jon Daley
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Why not "svn update"? It takes puts less bandwidth on both
>>> servers, and runs much quicker.
>>
>> So sure, it would remove the need to press 'p' on the first SVN run,
> since it wouldn't be using https, but I was going by the RC Wiki page:
>> http://trac.roundcube.net/trac.cgi/wiki/Dev_SVN
> No. It uses the same URL as the first run (and you still have to
> do a 'svn checkout' once), but since you already checked it out once, it
> doesn't have to get every file, but instead just the stuff that has
> changed since your last update.
>
>> Any reason to use the https way vs a basic svn up?
> Hopefully this isn't an insult, but have you used subversion
> before? I don't understand the question.
no, not insulted at all. I've used CVS for years, and I've used SVN from my
days with Hula a year or so back, but yeah, looking at my script for that it
just did a 'svn up' to get the latest code before the build. I guess what I
did was looked up the 'dev' way to do it, (wiki link) then did it that way, saw
that it put it in ./trunk/roundcubemail and I knew I didn't want
${WEB_ROOT}/trunk/roundcubemail - I wanted ${WEB_ROOT}/roundcubemail and that's
why I have the full checkout each time and the mv commands. That's really
kinda dumb though no reason in taxing the server for all the files each time,
lemme read up on svn, maybe you can set a target dir to put the files for
checkout/update?
Thanks for the feedback, I've never written a script and left it alone for long.
P
--
http://fak3r.com - you don't have to kick it
