svn - but smaller?

[David Magda]

On Tue, March 12, 2013 19:32, John Mehr wrote:
> 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?

If svnup will eventually going to be used to update a variety of
repositories, on a plethora of operating systems, then hard coding the
above may not be appropriate. Something akin to "svnup --repo={ports,
stable, security, release}" may be better, and then have a configuration
file with the settings.