#175 ch04: Confusing explanation of vendor branch mgmt.

[Anonymous]

Originally created by: s.v.h.ha...@gmail.com
Originally owned by: cmpilato

The following text in the explanation/example for vendor branches (in chap. 4) has caused me a
lot of headache recently:

     <para> After replacing the 1.0 code with 1.1 code, <command>svn
        status</command> will show files with local modifications as                                                     
        well as, perhaps, some unversioned files.  If we did what we

While the term "local modifications" is a standardized, unambiguous term in all other places (AFAIK),
it can be terribly confusing here: I tend to read it as "*my* modifications - not yet checked in from
*my* working dir - intended to incorporate the vendor code into our project".

But here, it refers *only* to the modifications in the *vendor* code from 1.0 to 1.1, i.e. no
modification of mine!

I suggest to use the term "svn status in the <filename>current</filename> directory will show files modified by the vendor  from 1.0 to 1.1, as well as..." instead.

Sincerely,
Stein Haugan

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: s.v.h.ha...@gmail.com

Just to be unambiguous: The continuation of the sentence containing my suggested change is "... as well as, perhaps, some unversioned files.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: s.v.h.ha...@gmail.com

This should perhaps be a separate issue, but it's closely related to the above so I enter it here:

I'd like to point out that a simple, useful trick for adding (lots of) unversioned files in
new versions is:

svn add current/*           [ignore warnings of already-managed files - no harm done]
svn add current/*/*
svn add current/*/*/*
:

Etc. until no files/dirs are found by the globbing. Done!

The other way around - to find deleted files, use:

diff -r 1.0 current  |  grep -E "^Only"

I.e.: recursive diff from version 1.0 to current, which will report missing files:
Issue "svn rm" commands for each one. Done!

(I'm a bit weary of the svn_load_dirs.pl script - with the above stuff I know exactly what's going on!)

Sincerely,
Stein Haugan

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: cmpilato

I prefer a single 'svn add current --force' over a cascading set of wildcard invocations, but your point is taken.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: cmpilato

These vendor branch sections have been problematic for far too long.  Must clean them up in 1.8.

Summary: ch04: Confusing explanation of vendor branch mgmt.
Labels: Milestone-en-1.8

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: cmpilato

(No comment was entered for this change.)

Owner: cmpilato

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by: cmpilato

I took care of this ambiguous wording my recent rewrites of this section, and in [r4362] worked in the 'svn add --force' hint.

Status: Fixed