On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:50:43 -0400
"David Magda" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, March 12, 2013 19:32, John Mehr wrote:
This sounds good to me, and as long as there's some sort
of a consensus that we're not breaking the principle of
least surprise, I'm all for it. The one default that
may
be unexpected is the defaulting to the stable branch --
people who track the security branches will be left
out.
So maybe something like:
svnup --ports
svnup --stable
svnup --security (or --release)
Thoughts?
If svnup will eventually going to be used to update a
variety of
repositories, on a plethora of operating systems, then
hard coding the
above may not be appropriate. Something akin to "svnup
--repo={ports,
stable, security, release}" may be better, and then have
a configuration
file with the settings.
Hello,
You're absolutely correct. It looks like someone has
already forked the code on github which seems like pretty
solid evidence for taking as flexible an approach as
possible and minimizing the amount of hard coded data.
_______________________________________________
[email protected] mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"
