Johan Corveleyn wrote on Tue, May 03, 2011 at 21:49:48 +0200:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 11:26 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 23:10:21 +0200:
> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> >> > Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 01:08:24 +0200:
> >> >> 2011/4/22 Branko Čibej <brane_at_e-reka.si>:
> >> >> > Meh. For now, just hack a special case so that committing one half of a
> >> >> > case-only rename will automagically commit the other half. Shouldn't be
> >> >> > too hard to do, and it's almost impossible to do the wrong thing --
> >> >> > after all, you're constrained by a) staying in the same directory, and
> >> >> > b) both halves of a rename resolving to the same on-disk file on a
> >> >> > case-insensitive file system.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sounds like another option. A small change here and there to make
> >> >> case-only renames work specifically (and not solve the more general
> >> >> problem of fixing path-guessing via wc-db or truepaths).
> >> >>
> >> >> The fact of the matter is that, for sane setups/companies,
> >> >> case-clashes are going to be really rare, *except when doing case-only
> >> >> renames*. A repository holding 'Foo', 'FOo' and 'FOO' would be a
> >> >> repository that's un-checkoutable on a case-insensitive filesystem
> >> >> anyway. So I'd expect companies that have to support case-insensitive
> >> >> clients to keep real case-clashes out of their repository (or fix them
> >> >> as soon as they are discovered).
> >> >>
> >> >> So maybe "case-only rename" (and perhaps "case-only replace"
> >> >> (delete+add w/o history)) is the only use-case we need to go for. But
> >> >> apart from commit, we should maybe also make "revert" possible, as
> >> >> well as adding to and removing from changelists ... (hm, commit would
> >> >> be the main thing I guess, revert can always be done in two steps
> >> >> (revert the add, then the delete), changelists ... oh well).
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Another use-case:
> >> >
> >> > When r1 contains a file 'Foo', r2 contains a file 'foo', the working
> >> > copy is at uniform revision r2, and the user types 'svn up -r1 Foo'.
> >> >
> >> > There is also a variant where Foo_at_r1 is a directory rather than a file,
> >> > but that's getting contrived.
> >> And I guess 'Foo' no longer exists in r2, and 'foo' didn't exist in
> >> r1? Maybe 'Foo' got renamed to 'foo'? Or maybe there is no historical
> >> relationship?
> >> Anyway, I think this also works right now, without any special tricks:
> >> - 'svn up -r1 Foo' gets canonicalized to 'svn up -r1 foo', the file
> >> on-disk, and currently present in the working copy.
> >> - If 'foo's ancestor is 'Foo', 'foo' gets deleted and 'Foo' is
> >> downloaded from the repository, by the update editor.
> >> The update editor currently has no problems with handling case-only
> >> renames on case-insensitive filesystems.
> > Sorry for not being clear.
> > In my example I intended 'foo' and 'Foo' to be two separate lines of
> > history.
> > % svnadmin create r1
> > % svn co file://`pwd`/r1 wc1
> > % cd wc1
> > % svn mkdir iota
> > % svn ci -m r1
> > % svn rm iota
> > % svn mkdir IOTA
> > % svn ci -m r2
> > % svn up -r2
> > % option #1: svn up -r1 iota
> > % option #2: svn up -r1 iota IOTA
> > For option #1, I specified 'iota', so I expect svn to error out saying
> > "You asked me to create ./iota but I can't because ./IOTA exists" (never
> > mind whether or not it's versioned).
> I'm confused. If you type "svn up -r1 iota", the iota is a target of
> the PATH variety, or in any case you're trying to address something in
> the working copy. At this point there is no ambiguity: you're actually
> referring to IOTA (the on-disk truepath), because what else is there
> (there is no iota present on disk, nor in the wc metadata)?
There is ^/iota_at_1. Just take IOTA out of the picture and try it:
% svnadmin create r1
% svn co file://`pwd`/r1 wc1
% cd wc1
% touch iota && svn add iota
% svn ci -m r1 iota
% svn rm iota
% svn ci -m r2
% svn up -r2
% svn up -r1 iota
> So you're really asking to update IOTA to r1, in which it didn't
No, I'm asking to restore 'iota' from r1, in which it did exist.
> So this is a perfectly valid operation, which would result the
> deletion of IOTA (and nothing else).
> > Option #2 is what I'd expect to work to get me iota_at_1 (at the expense of
> > shifting IOTA_at_2 to not-present(?) state, but that's the best I can do
> > given the filesystem's limitations). It's probably a bit tricky unless
> > we can ensure the editor sends IOTA before iota, though...
> No, this is identical to option #1, I think. There is no iota on-disk,
> nor is there in wc-metadata, so you can only be referring two times to
Received on 2011-05-03 22:17:46 CEST