Re: Update problem: Tree conflicts vs content conflicts

On 9/7/05, Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> wrote:
> I don't think the "stomping" problem is real. If I schedule 'foo' at
> rX for deletion in my working copy, then I update to rX+Y and 'foo'
> updates I would be quite happy for it to remain scheduled for deletion
> and for my commit to delete the newer 'foo'. The same goes for
> schedule 'R'.

What if the content of 'foo' has been moved (or split up, for which
"true renames" would not help) rather than deleted? Shouldn't changes
to 'foo' be propagated to their new location (which, in the case of a
split, can only be done manually)?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Sep 9 22:09:53 2005