Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 10:43:12 -0400 From: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Cc: John Mehr <jcm@visi.com> Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <201303151043.12576.jhb@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <web-11167474@mailback3.g2host.com> References: <web-11636850@mailback4.g2host.com> <20130313152150.E32142@sola.nimnet.asn.au> <web-11167474@mailback3.g2host.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 10:11:28 pm John Mehr wrote:
> > And svnup(1) really should mention that any files in the
> >target tree not
> > in the repository will be deleted, which was
> >(explicitly) not the case
> > with c{,v}sup. I only lost a few acpi patches that I
> >think have likely
> > made it to stable/9 anyway, and it's a test system, but
> >I was surprised.
>
> I always thought csup did delete files. I was looking at
> csup's man page for things to put on the to-do list and
> there's a csup command line parameter ( -d ) that puts a
> limit on the number of files that can be deleted in a
> given run. Adding this feature is already on my to-do
> list, and I've just added another item to let the user
> choose whether svnup should delete extra files in the
> local source tree.
csup deletes files that are deleted upstream (so if an svn
commit were to remove a file from the source tree). It did
not delete files that were locally added (like work/ directories
for port builds, or kernel config files) that were never in
the repository in the first place.
I think that is the approach you probably want to take by default.
That is also how the stock svn client acts.
--
John Baldwin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201303151043.12576.jhb>