Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:50:43 -0400 From: "David Magda" <dmagda@ee.ryerson.ca> To: "John Mehr" <jcm@visi.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <dd47b0701af3e2b6c92fe70fa0da3fc1.squirrel@webmail.ee.ryerson.ca> In-Reply-To: <web-11149903@mailback3.g2host.com> References: <web-11636850@mailback4.g2host.com> <513E2DA5.70200@mac.com> <web-12282796@mailback4.g2host.com> <op.wts7cnaeg7njmm@michael-think> <web-11149903@mailback3.g2host.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, March 12, 2013 19:32, John Mehr wrote:
> This sounds good to me, and as long as there's some sort
> of a consensus that we're not breaking the principle of
> least surprise, I'm all for it. The one default that may
> be unexpected is the defaulting to the stable branch --
> people who track the security branches will be left out.
> So maybe something like:
>
> svnup --ports
> svnup --stable
> svnup --security (or --release)
>
> Thoughts?
If svnup will eventually going to be used to update a variety of
repositories, on a plethora of operating systems, then hard coding the
above may not be appropriate. Something akin to "svnup --repo={ports,
stable, security, release}" may be better, and then have a configuration
file with the settings.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?dd47b0701af3e2b6c92fe70fa0da3fc1.squirrel>