Martin Pool <mbp@samba.org> writes:
> % svn up
> svn: Obstructed update
> svn: failed to add file 'added': object of the same name already exists
>
> OK, fine...
>
> % mv added added.new
>
> I suspect the average user will respond to "obstructed update" by
> moving the file to a temporary name as I did. This seems to work OK
> in CVS.
>
> % svn up
> A added
Mmmm, this is also a bug which should probably be filed. This update
should fail, I think. You never reverted the scheduled-add. I agree
with your assessment further down: a revert is required. By moving
the working-file out of the way, all the user has done is create a
scheduled-add file that also happens to be "missing".
Instead, 'svn up' should be reporting a conflict much earlier, based
on the fact that there's *already* an entry by that name.
> 1- A conflict between a locally and remotely added file must be
> cleared by "svn rm" (or "svn revert"?) before the update can proceed.
> Just removing the wc is not enough. The "obstructed update" message
> ought to say so.
Absolutely.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Dec 9 14:50:52 2002