Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Did you try that? Sorry, there is no offense implied, but have you
> tested it before claiming such stuff?
> That is exactly the scenario that you presented to me in the early alpha
> stages of svn-buildpackage and which I have implemented.
No, I had no idea you had implemented it. It's not documented on the man
pages:
svn-inject(1):
-l Layout type. 1 (default) means package/{trunk,tags,branches,...}
scheme, 2 means the {trunk,tags,branches,...}/package scheme. 2
is not implemented yet.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
svn-upgrade(1):
The repository
filesystem tree must be in the format created by svn-inject.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I'm glad that it's implemented, if you say it is..
> yes, I see what you mean now after trying svn-upgrade with the new
> layout. But if you do not report the problem then the problem does not
> exist (from maintainers POV).
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/09/msg00736.html
I've never used svn-buildpackage or svn-upgrade since writing that so I don't
know what problem you're referring to.
--
see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature