This was not an oversight, it was a deliberate design decision. I believe
the enhancement issue's summary was something to the effect of "checkouts
should be restartable".
Chris Rose wrote:
> In our nightly builds it's convenient to use checkout as an update as
> well; we can choose to blow away our source code and our nightly code
> update scripts Just Work(tm) despite the absence of a checked out copy.
>
> It's not a fundamentally critical feature, to be sure, but it's nice in
> this case.
>
> David Glasser wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Eric Gillespie <epg_at_pretzelnet.org>
>> wrote:
>>> "David Glasser" <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> writes:
>>>
>>> > That doesn't mean that the UI has to reflect this implementation. I
>>> > don't see why --accept is useful for checkout; I think it should be
>>> > removed.
>>>
>>> The UI already does. Unless you change 'svn checkout URL existing-wc'
>>> to error out instead of updating it.
>>
>> Sure, I think the fact that this works is a bug. checkout and update
>> are conceptually different operations, no matter how our current
>> wc/client code works. A more structured working copy would treat them
>> rather differently. I don't see why we should go out of our way to
>> encourage people to use checkout as update, even if it happens to work
>> (and I'd be OK with making it be an error).
>>
>> Is there any useful reason to use "svn checkout URL existing-wc"?
>>
>> --dave
>>
>
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-04-01 19:28:21 CEST