From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Mar 14 02:30:34 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A9A51346 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:30:34 +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 78519848 for ; Thu, 14 Mar 2013 02:30:33 +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 11167609 for freebsd-stable@freebsd.org; Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:30:33 -0500 From: "John Mehr" Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? To: X-Mailer: CommuniGate Pro WebUser v5.3.11 Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:30:33 -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 02:30:34 -0000 On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:50:43 -0400  "David Magda" wrote: > 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. Hello, You're absolutely correct.  It looks like someone has already forked the code on github which seems like pretty solid evidence for taking as flexible an approach as possible and minimizing the amount of hard coded data.