Extending new update --force switch to handle local additions -- also new related FAQ

I have had a user contact me about a problem they were having. I helped
resolve it and they wanted me to add an FAQ entry. I have attached a
patch for review.

The scenario is that the user contributed a patch to an open source
project using Subversion. The patch included new files, so he ran svn add
so that they would be included in the svn diff output. The patch is
accepted and committed by a committer. The user now runs svn update on
his working copy and it fails because he still has the new files in his
working copy. He feels that update should handle this.

Paul Burba's recent patch added --force option to update. If the file was
in an unversioned status in his working copy, and he used this option,
then update would handle the situation. I think we should consider
extending this feature to do the same thing if the file was a scheduled
add in his working copy. Would it be OK if I enter an issue for this in
the issue tracker? Does anyone have any strong objections to this idea
and does not want it filed? Paul's previous changes do not lose any code
and requires the user to specify --force, so if this could be done, I
think we ought to do it. Especially, since the Subversion workflow led
the user into this scenario.

The attached FAQ talks about the situation and how to get out of it using
svn revert followed by a delete or move. It does not talk about the
upcoming --force option. I am not crazy about the wording of this FAQ as
it seems too specific, so I'd appreciate a better way to write this. I
think our policy would encourage me to just commit the FAQ, but I'd like
to see it worded better first, or get some kind of approval that the
current wording is good enough for now.

Thanks

Mark

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