"Molle Bestefich" <molle.bestefich@gmail.com> wrote on 04/17/2006 07:51:07
PM:
> Paul Burba wrote:
> > > What Alan outlines sounds much cleaner and much more useful,
> > > even if it does require a new subcommand.
> >
> > ...again I think this functionality would be in addition to what I'm
> > doing, not a replacement for it. No?
>
> I figured that what you want sounds exactly like Alan's cleaner
> variant of 'takeover', with 'svn up' afterwards to recreate the files
> in WC that are marked as missing.
>
> Am I completely off the track? :-)
Hi Molle,
I think we are just on different tracks :-)
I thought you were referring to Alan's proposal:
Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com> wrote on 04/15/2006 10:04:10 AM:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > Files that do not exist locally but do in the repository would
> > be added locally and show as unmodified.
>
> I don't want that. I want the file to show as deleted locally ("!" in
> output from "svn status"). Later, I can choose whether to add the file
> locally (svn revert filename) or delete the file in the repository (svn
> delete filename ; svn commit filename).
If so, that is not what we're proposing. We just want checkout to
tolerate existing files/directories, as described here in the last post on
this topic before "take 2":
> kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net wrote on 09/16/2005 06:20:36 PM:
>
> > Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> > > Well, I'm not part of this consensus.
> > >
> > > I think checkout should tolerate existing directories by default. No
> > > need for a flag for that. That should alleviate that Eclipse use
> case.
> >
> > Yes -- in fact, I thought this was the conclusion we came to earlier
> > (though the thread has been long, and I don't blame anyone for
> > forgetting a later conclusion and backtracking to an earlier one).
> >
> > +1 on checkout just Doing The Right Thing when invoked over an
> > existing local tree, by default. No need for a new switch here.
> >
> > -Karl
And just to be clear, we interpret this this way:
If you checkout into a non-empty directory:
svn co <URL> <WCPATH>
It behaves exactly the same as co does now, with one exception:
1) If a path/name from <URL> already exists in <WCPATH> we keep the latter
and it's status is modified (rather than the whole co failing).
That's really it in a nutshell. Does that clear things up at all? Or am
I off track and at the bottom of a ravine at this point?
Let me know,
Paul B.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 18 14:40:22 2006