Correct. :) I am talking about a mass UPDATE. Not commit. You're right, mass commits would be silly. But I am essentially using this as what you said, a "quasi-backup" system, but from the other way around.
We use Springloops for all of our repositories, but I don't 100% trust everything they have. I always like to keep a local backup of repositories in our office on our local file servers. So we have a read-only SVN user that we use purely for checking out, and I check these out into our appropriate backup directories on our file servers. It'd be nice to just run a mass `svn up` on all repositories. :) On Dec 21, 4:13 pm, Kevin Powick <kpow...@gmail.com> wrote: > Oops! My apologies. > > After re-reading your post, I believe you are talking about updating > your working copies, not making commits to the remote repos. Though > you do say "Update" in your post, I ended up confused by reading > "repository" elsewhere. > > Mass update (working copies), might not be a bad idea. Mass commit > (repos) wouldn't be a good one. ;-) > > Regards, > > -- > Kevin Powick -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Versions" group. To post to this group, send email to versi...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to versions+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/versions?hl=en.
