subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Blair Zajac <>
Subject Re: Unclear syntax for relative addressing of svn:externals, on RHEL 5, subversion-1.6.12
Date Mon, 12 Jul 2010 16:00:09 GMT
On 07/12/2010 04:42 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 6:45 PM, Ryan Schmidt
> <>  wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 2010, at 17:13, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 9, 2010 at 4:19 PM, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>>> On Jul 9, 2010, at 14:08, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>>> What I wanted to do was have Subversion check out directories from
>>> within the same repository, rooted to the top of the repository, so
>>> that moving a tag or branch up or down wouldn't break the references.
>>> I'd thought from the documentation about 'relative references' that it
>>> would apply to the URL of the external repository, so that if the repo
>>> is checked out as file:///, https:///, svn:///, etc. the URL's for
>>> svn:externals downloading would be auto-munged appropriately.
>>> Is this not available?
>> Yes, it is possible, using the syntax I provided.
> Thanks, Ryan, I've checked it myself. Do others agree that the
> documentation in the book and the documentation in the "svn help
> propset" is also unclear about the order of the arguments? It seems
> very strange indeed to me tha the arguments for relative addressing
> are reversed from the arguments URL's for separate repositories.

That's because the 1.4 and earlier format doesn't support peg revisions 
and the newer format does.

How would you write the description for "svn help ps"?

>> On the book page you referred to, scroll down to the part that reads "As of Subversion
1.5, though, a new format of the svn:externals property is supported." The old externals syntax,
which does not support what you want, had the format "localdir url". The new format, that
does support what you want, has the format "url localdir" (the parameters are reversed from
before). I know this works because I use it in my repository here:
> But the old format still works. Are both supported? Because if it is,
> I've got to say, that's just nasty and confusing.

Yes, both are supported.

Unfortunately, one cannot break the existing format because an 
organization may still have clients on 1.4, so there had to be a way to 
distinguish the new format from the old format.


View raw message