subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Les Mikesell <lesmikes...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Unclear syntax for relative addressing of svn:externals, on RHEL 5, subversion-1.6.12
Date Tue, 13 Jul 2010 15:12:59 GMT
On 7/13/2010 8:35 AM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
>
>>> When the code has beem moved around. There's a description at
>>> http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/ch07s03.html which helps explain
>>> it.
>>>
>>> Mind you, I think if you're doing this kind of drilling back you're
>>> begging or pain.
>>
>> Yes I understand the situation where you would have to use path@rev
>> to get something at all (because history doesn't lead there).  What
>> I don't understand is when you would ever be wrong if you used that
>> all the time instead of -r rev.       Which leads to the related
>> question as to why that syntax isn't the default for commands.  Is
>> it less efficient than following history backwards?
>
> There is no difference.
>
> In the "-r rev" syntax, the rev is interpreted as a peg revision.
> See http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/subversion/trunk/subversion/libsvn_wc/props.c?revision=961970&view=markup
> lines 3026 to 3092, inside function svn_wc_parse_externals_description3().
> Revisions parsed from either syntax set the same variable (item->peg_revision).
>
> The new syntax is simply more convenient because the order of URL and path
> is consistent with svn checkout.

I meant it as a more general question, not just in the context of 
externals.  Is there some reason not to use the path@rev style for every 
command or document that as the preferred method?  There are some 
situations where it is easier to construct, like a parametrized build in 
Hudson, for example.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
    lesmikesell@gmail.com

Mime
View raw message