Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2013 21:30:33 -0500 From: "John Mehr" <jcm@visi.com> To: <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <web-11167614@mailback3.g2host.com> In-Reply-To: <dd47b0701af3e2b6c92fe70fa0da3fc1.squirrel@webmail.ee.ryerson.ca> References: <web-11636850@mailback4.g2host.com> <513E2DA5.70200@mac.com> <web-12282796@mailback4.g2host.com> <op.wts7cnaeg7njmm@michael-think> <web-11149903@mailback3.g2host.com> <dd47b0701af3e2b6c92fe70fa0da3fc1.squirrel@webmail.ee.ryerson.ca>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 13 Mar 2013 14:50:43 -0400
"David Magda" <dmagda@ee.ryerson.ca> 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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?web-11167614>