Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 208C32007D0 for ; Tue, 10 May 2016 16:09:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 1EC9216098A; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:09:17 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 69D62160877 for ; Tue, 10 May 2016 16:09:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 13415 invoked by uid 500); 10 May 2016 14:09:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list users@subversion.apache.org Received: (qmail 13402 invoked by uid 99); 10 May 2016 14:09:15 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd2-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:09:15 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd2-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd2-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id 815D71A080D for ; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:09:14 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd2-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.802 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.802 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd2-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mx2-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd2-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.9]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4PqLsCCLyQYK for ; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-io0-f180.google.com (mail-io0-f180.google.com [209.85.223.180]) by mx2-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx2-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 6F7EC5F1E5 for ; Tue, 10 May 2016 14:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-io0-f180.google.com with SMTP id 190so17199153iow.1 for ; Tue, 10 May 2016 07:09:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=yInTtIl3G4ygJefM7j/rAbvAyB3vS4YB+6g24pOAF+0=; b=IyS8Wj3i6FfBtOWq9jh7ADnM334UsRErM8AyEJ0yrR1Xavd9T3WrrNWIEq3h2SwhM5 5eKygMJ0/5tFWf8XqSp9nLPgJH2RtmGzBJd2cSoc/amjEatg0bpeJd83gu/Df20pjW6Q UhKSA13wpyttYdIi5Gbh9HOYmtcarYLRH0pgC3yEyTm5y4jmI9RhUAXdpFimzMQ59/vW WHM7eLrAYbRYkWOJiEovK7yR/F1get51fL1sXRCuRDatC6dT+zsJNQBOMz8tOoTFkPxe Eq3swdlTYTytW4rrnw5oSCKeKZ4P2JcJ98PTOXwDf+KPiFw+XINdCoCZWG1czz54hZSV fTdQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to; bh=yInTtIl3G4ygJefM7j/rAbvAyB3vS4YB+6g24pOAF+0=; b=fxSNatNsD0QN0S4wGNnDsSL2GTaVXo0RO4Kfxj6Mb1JQbQbbxK+yZPCRhLV/bAx5DQ ezdujr1+D8CFaK2bZoJOerKkG/0/x2L2rroQNkcmOOek0zAu11jt1kub2du7ZWcRBiCs 8U4zFVUJKBgJ/q2Ocg/aYlIWRhbvjVBPXagDuHATrTAznc+jt/O3oCI2M696KagLTOcc L7UrPX1iCywfaKibYAKSMh3CaYabjpua9H5YdUUwQdhZjfK+kym8/5E8qddgnL452DZZ NEONgLIc2Sx7/aDsTaurceW+5FsaRtGKsAVeiXatTEcMXrU+lIGSd7RfgTMdeObIfFHx jNjA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FX+lsce+kMEguYOANDHRiTjMHajlGYZe+KF9izUqgrdrHIy7ENQIWzyGK5MTv1m1M6avClm3OMX7NEJcw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.36.77.8 with SMTP id l8mr1389091itb.17.1462889352594; Tue, 10 May 2016 07:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.107.16.97 with HTTP; Tue, 10 May 2016 07:09:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 09:09:12 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: tag individual files vs whole repo? From: Matt Garman To: users@subversion.apache.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 archived-at: Tue, 10 May 2016 14:09:17 -0000 Consider this scenario: our project has concurrent releases, R8 and R9. These releases have been indicated in the repo by some means, either a tag or a branch. Now, we need to bugfix R8 only. Specifically, we want to do a release R8.1 that does not include R9 features. Through some means, e.g. mis-communication, developer error, whatever, the developer does the bugfix on R9, instead of R8. And he tags his fix "bug_xyz_fix". Now, the release manager will update his build to the "bug_xyz_fix" label, and inadvertently release the bugfix plus the R9 changes, which we wanted to avoid. This is one potential problem with tagging a whole repo, rather than individual files. In this particular case, it may be possible that the one file that changed for the R8 bugfix is also perfectly valid for R9. So in this case, it arguably makes sense to tag only the one changed file, rather than the whole repo. I've seen this asked before ("how to tag only individual files"). I know it's possible to force svn into doing it, but it's going against the design intent of the tool. And I feel that whole-repo tagging is generally better, but the above example is one case where that may not hold. So what I'm really asking is: - What are the rational reasons to prefer whole-repo tagging versus individual file tagging? I'm having trouble coming up with example cases to support whole-repo tagging even though my gut says it's better. - In general, what kind of automation (e.g. convenience scripts, hooks, etc) have you built on top of subversion to help avoid process errors like the one described above? Thanks!