Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:32:28 -0500 From: "John Mehr" <jcm@visi.com> To: "Michael Ross" <gmx@ross.cx>, <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn - but smaller? Message-ID: <web-11149903@mailback3.g2host.com> In-Reply-To: <op.wts7cnaeg7njmm@michael-think> References: <web-11636850@mailback4.g2host.com> <513E2DA5.70200@mac.com> <web-12282796@mailback4.g2host.com> <op.wts7cnaeg7njmm@michael-think>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 02:20:37 +0100 "Michael Ross" <gmx@ross.cx> wrote: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:15:35 +0100, John Mehr ><jcm@visi.com> wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:16:53 -0400 >> Patrick McEvoy <patmcevoy@mac.com> wrote: >>> Hello John, >>> This is Patrick the BSDTV guy. If you have the time / >>>inclination, would you like to do a quick walk through >>>svnup?**If you have a machine that will run Skype, I >>>could record you doing a walk through including all the >>>things you want to tell users about your port. Skype >>>offers a "share your screen" feature that I have found >>>helpful for making such videos. If you are interested, >>>please let me know. >>> Thank you for your support of the BSD community. >>> ** >>> -- Patrick McEvoy >>> patmcevoy@mac.com >>> cell: 718 440-5104 >>> _______________________________________________ >>> freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list >>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable >>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >>>"freebsd-stable-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >>> >> >> Hello, >> >> I'm currently in the process of adding http/https >>support to svnup and once I've got that working, the >>command line interface will be changing to be more like >>the traditional svn client to make it easier for people >>to adopt the tool [...] > > 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) Thoughts?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?web-11149903>