svn - but smaller?

[John Mehr]

On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 02:20:37 +0100
 "Michael Ross" <gmx at ross.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:15:35 +0100, John Mehr 
><jcm at visi.com> wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Mar 2013 15:16:53 -0400
>>  Patrick McEvoy <patmcevoy at mac.com> wrote:
>>> Hello John,
>>> This is Patrick the BSDTV guy. If you have the time / 
>>>inclination, would you like to do a quick walk through 
>>>svnup?**If you have a machine that will run Skype, I 
>>>could record you doing a walk through including all the 
>>>things you want to tell users about your port. Skype 
>>>offers a "share your screen" feature that I have found 
>>>helpful for making such videos. If you are interested, 
>>>please let me know.
>>> Thank you for your support of the BSD community.
>>>  **
>>>  -- Patrick McEvoy
>>> patmcevoy at mac.com
>>> cell: 718 440-5104
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> freebsd-stable at freebsd.org mailing list
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
>>> To unsubscribe, send any mail to 
>>>"freebsd-stable-unsubscribe at freebsd.org"
>>>
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm currently in the process of adding http/https 
>>support to svnup and once I've got that working, the 
>>command line interface will be changing to be more like 
>>the traditional svn client to make it easier for people 
>>to adopt the tool [...]
> 
> What'd you think about a syntax extension along the 
>lines of
> 
> 	svnup --bsd-base
> 	svnup --bsd-ports
> 	svnup --bsd-all
> 
> with automagic host selection, default to uname's major 
>version stable branch and default target dirs?

Hello,

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?