cvs vs svn... (Re: SOURCES: ghostscript-afpl-am.patch (NEW), ghostscript-afpl-ijs_pkg...)

[Jan Rekorajski]

On Thu, 08 Sep 2005, Arkadiusz Miskiewicz wrote:

> On Thursday 08 of September 2005 20:27, Jakub Bogusz wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 08:29:06PM +0200, Paweł Sakowski wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-09-06 at 19:27 +0200, Jan Rekorajski wrote:
> > > > At the cost of keeping ALL tags/branches locally. You're joking.
> > > >
> > > > [baggins at sith rpm]$ du -hs SOURCES SPECS
> > > > 959M    SOURCES
> > > > 63M     SPECS
> > >
> > > Obviously svn makes no sense with such file organization (in two
> > > directories). To allow reasonable branching, each package would have to
> > > have a directory of its own. Which is a good idea anyway, but probably
> > > it's not worth changing now.
> >
> > How would I make "cvs up SPECS" (without getting any SOURCES) then?
> Not so easy as in cvs.
> 
> for pkg in `svn ls http://.../packages/`; do
> 	do whatever you need
> done

Bzzt, argument line too long...
Try again ;>

Janek
-- 
Jan Rękorajski            |  ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl   |  OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY?
BOFH, MANIAC              |                   -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio