Re: SVN need to delete/create-temp/rename files instead of simply ove rwriting them (suggestion how to workaround)

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:

> On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 14:29, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Patches, as ever, welcome! Is that unfair?
>
> It's unfair if we won't accept the patches.
>
> We have a choice between atomic replacement (which means working copy
> files won't be left in intermediate states, which is good) and
> preserving the file identity.

If the change were only to apply to changes made while running a log
file then the intermediate states would be irrelevant. It's far from
trivial to make Subversion behave this way, but I think it could be
done.

> I think atomic replacement is the right
> choice; even if we back up file contents before overwriting them, users
> won't necessarily know where to look for the backups.

User's probably wouldn't need to know, only "svn cleanup" would ever
have to deal with them.

> And we're far
> from the only tool which performs atomic replacement to update files.

Agreed, although some tools, e.g. (x)emacs, allow the user to choose.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org