libqof change - not complete yet.

[Neil Williams]

On Monday 07 November 2005 5:07 pm, Derek Atkins wrote:
> Who asked for that?  I've asked for emailed-in patches to be small..
> But who ever said that SVN commits should be small?  SVN commits
> should be functionally-complete objects.

OK, understood. (The request was probably from the cvs time - something about 
keeping commits logically coherent.) Looks like I took that one stage too 
far. Sorry.

> svn checkout a new copy of the trunk branch?
> svn revert?

OK - to make sure I get this right, it looks like svn revert needs a target 
file:
http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.1/re25.html

I can't see how to revert to a specific revision - I know it should be 
possible. I don't see an option on svn help revert to specify a revision tag.

Could someone help me with this? (off-list if you like).

> it prevents autogenerated files from getting into your source tree.
> it lets you start a new "build from scratch" by running:
>
>   rm -rf build-tree; mkdir build-tree; cd build-tree; lndir ../src-tree ;
>   ./autogen.sh ; ./configure ; make ; make install

OK, I see that. Thank you.

> I've certainly mentioned this on the list NUMEROUS times.

I don't think you've mentioned it whilst I've been reading the lists but no 
matter. (May be an idea to put this in README.svn though.)
:-)

> > I fouled up, OK? Now please stop shooting me and let's see how to fix it.
>
> I don't think anyone is trying to shoot you.  I, at least, was trying to
> understand why you did what you did to understand what was going through
> your mind.  You might know something I don't...

Thanks for the (misplaced) confidence but in this case, I simply got it wrong. 
It happens sometimes.

> Or you might have just 
> been confused in which case knowing what you were thinking could help in
> correcting your misunderstandings.  I think we ALL are just trying to help
> you fix it.

OK. (the angst is as much my own guilt at making such a foul up as anything 
else, I suppose.)

> For example, you could just revert your tree to the revision before
> your changes
> or even revert the repository to the previous revision.  (This is yet
> another reason to have fuctionally-complete commits -- makes it easier to
> migrate or revert changesets).

From the svn book, it looks like it's actually update I need to call:

$ svn update --revision PREV foo.c
# rewinds the last change on foo.c.
# (foo.c's working revision is decreased.)

Is it:
svn update --revision r11887
? More confusion.

svn revert appears to only work on files not revisions:
$ svn help revert
revert: Restore pristine working copy file (undo most local edits).
usage: revert PATH...

  Note:  this subcommand does not require network access, and resolves
  any conflicted states.  However, it does not restore removed directories.

Valid options:
  --targets arg            : pass contents of file ARG as additional args
  -R [--recursive]         : descend recursively
  -q [--quiet]             : print as little as possible
  --config-dir arg         : read user configuration files from directory ARG

That's my problem - the local edits were trashed.

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-devel/attachments/20051107/a6c2c7ee/attachment.bin