subversion-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefan Sperling <>
Subject Re: Unclear syntax for relative addressing of svn:externals, on RHEL 5, subversion-1.6.12
Date Tue, 13 Jul 2010 13:35:45 GMT
On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 07:28:36AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Les Mikesell <> wrote:
> >>On 7/12/2010 4:57 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >>>I understand that, and can understand that the peg revisions demanded
> >>>a new syntax.
> >>I realize that this is barely related to the topic, but is there any common
> >>scenario where you wouldn't want to use peg revision syntax?  In every
> >>situation I can imagine where -r rev path and path@rev might differ, the one
> >>I'd want would be path@rev.
> >
> >When the code has beem moved around. There's a description at
> > 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.
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.


View raw message