From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 14 02:17:49 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [8.8.178.115]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1A6AD50 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:17:49 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jcm@visi.com) Received: from g2host.com (mailback3.g2host.com [208.42.184.243]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66D315FB for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:17:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [208.42.90.57] (account jcm@visi.com) by mailback3.g2host.com (CommuniGate Pro WEBUSER 5.3.11) with HTTP id 11167498 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:17:48 -0500 From: "John Mehr" Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? To: X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.3.11 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:17:48 -0500 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <513E2DA5.70200@mac.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:17:49 -0000 On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:57:13 -0600 (MDT)  Warren Block wrote: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013, John Mehr wrote: >> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 02:20:37 +0100 >>  "Michael Ross" wrote: >>> >>> What'd you think about a syntax extension along the >>>lines of >>> >>> svnup --bsd-base >>> svnup --bsd-ports >>> svnup --bsd-all >>> >>> with automagic host selection, default to uname's major >>>version stable branch and default target dirs? >> >> Hello, >> >> 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) > > How would you select the mirror?  There are two now, and >likely more > later. This is a good question.  I was thinking it could be done the same way that freebsd-update selects its mirror via an SRV query but it looks like that's currently not an option.