Re: Queries about SVN (Security related)

2011-11-29 Thread Johan Corveleyn
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Daniel Shahaf d...@daniel.shahaf.name wrote: Jerryleen S wrote on Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:50:06 +0530: but as per discussion in the thread it isn't possible to differentiate deleting or adding or modifying transaction during pre-commit script. I don't

Re: branching strategies in subversion

2011-11-29 Thread Les Mikesell
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 2:13 AM, jes Struck j...@praqma.net wrote: Thank you for all youre responses The point uis that im not interested in feature branching, my developers are interested in working with developer branches because its hard for them to setup up eclipse each time they branch

Re: Unreferenced pristines behavior in 1.7

2011-11-29 Thread Mark Phippard
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Joshua McKinnon jmmckin...@gmail.com wrote: Having it happen automatically instead of needing to regularly run svn cleanup is definitely preferable. I've never had to run it in the past except in the event of a problem. (e.g. a command did not complete

Re: Unreferenced pristines behavior in 1.7

2011-11-29 Thread Joshua McKinnon
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Mark Phippard markp...@gmail.com wrote: Note that the difference is that now your pristines are shared.  So if you have files in your working copy that are identical there is only a single pristine.  Imagine a checkout of an entire repository, including tags

Re: Unreferenced pristines behavior in 1.7

2011-11-29 Thread Andreas Krey
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 15:57:28 +, Joshua McKinnon wrote: ... Oh the new working copy format is absolutely great. The point is only that the pristine files appear to build up over time, which seems new. They do. For every changed file that comes to exist in the sandbox a new pristine copy will

Re: Unreferenced pristines behavior in 1.7

2011-11-29 Thread Mark Phippard
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:57 PM, Joshua McKinnon jmmckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Mark Phippard markp...@gmail.com wrote: Note that the difference is that now your pristines are shared.  So if you have files in your working copy that are identical there is only a

Re: Unreferenced pristines behavior in 1.7

2011-11-29 Thread Talden
I am actually in the process of doing an all-branches checkout right now, to try and take advantage of the consolidation available in the new working copy format. When using SSDs, disk usage matters. I used to work (pre 1.7) with many branches including the trunk in separate WCs Now I check

Re: Unreferenced pristines behavior in 1.7

2011-11-29 Thread Mark Phippard
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 6:28 PM, Talden tal...@gmail.com wrote: I'd actually like the ability to separate the pristine-store from the WC root since I'd like to have several WCs for the same trunk or branch with various pieces of work-in-progress - sharing pristines there would be great.