Mathieu MARACHE wrote:
IMHO, the svn:external scheme is far more complex than copying tags
("svn copy" is a very cheap operation in subversion). I won't argue on
which is best, they both achieve the same goal. But is this goal
(having a way to checkout the latest devel/stable release) of any use
to somebody else (other than setting up automatic nightly builds of
OSG) ? I'm using the vendor branches anyway.
As I'm not the one doing any of the necessary work if this moves forward
I don't really mind which solution would be chosen.
I'm against adding two _tags_ (i.e. under directory /tags) that
represent the latest stable and development releases, but there's no
reason why two "svn copy"s couldn't be made somewhere else in the
repository.
Regards,
Paul
Mathieu
2008/10/7 Jean-Sébastien Guay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Hi Paul,
Now that I think about it, perhaps making self-referential svn:externals
isn't such a great idea, hmmm :)
You mean an svn:externals that points to some other directory in your
repository? No, that's fine. It's the way the SVN book advises to replace
the "modules" functionality. You create an empty directory in your repo, and
then give it a bunch of externals that correspond to the specific parts of
your repo that you want to be included in the module. It's kind of using
svn:externals like a symlink.
J-S
--
______________________________________________________
Jean-Sebastien Guay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.cm-labs.com/
http://whitestar02.webhop.org/
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
_______________________________________________
osg-users mailing list
osg-users@lists.openscenegraph.org
http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-users-openscenegraph.org
