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 users out there expecting dir externals to be excluded always. >>> >>> That's why I'm asking: if I told everyone to place a specific revision in >>> their externals definitions to be able to exclude them from commits, would >>> that cause major havoc? >> >> Major havoc? Perhaps not so much. But realize that we'd be telling folks >> to make a versioned change to *their data* solely for the purpose of >> preserving a behavior they have grown to expect already. We're not asking >> them to tweak local configuration, or some process point -- we're asking >> them to change their repository contents. That starts to feel (to me, at >> least) like we've crossed a line we shouldn't cross. > > Where does this argument come in with file externals? Current trunk changes > the default behavior compared to 1.7.x, so that file externals are no longer > committed along by default. Would you want to revert that change?
As a community, we need to decide how we will handle file externals in general. Their clever implementation invites inconsistency. I prefer that file externals be treated the same way as directory externals in every behavior possible. I find that easier to understand and account for myself, easier to explain to others. But I don't know that the rest of the devs think the same way about them that I do. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
