Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> writes:
> On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:07:47PM +0100, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Running update also makes mixed-rev source into single-rev so I'd be
>> happy not to support mixed-rev move, except that update a single-rev
>> tree from one rev to another goes through mixed-rev.
> IMO we don't need to support mixed-rev move at all if it causes
> too much pain. If people *really* needed that, they could still
> run a mixed-rev-copy+delete.
> Remember that this is a new feature. We can freely add constraints
> to it until it gets released.
I think we may be able to resolve the problem by using tree-conflicts.
Consider A moved-to B and an update to A/f that cannot be applied to
B/f. We can apply the update to the base node of A/f but we cannot
apply it to the moved node B/f for some reason (B/f is deleted or
replaced say). This will generate a tree-conflict. After the update we
have a move that is "broken" because the source has been updated and the
destination has not but it is still marked as a move, plus we have a
tree-conlfict. The process of resolving the tree-conflict will either
convert the move into delete+copy, or involve getting the tree into a
state such that the move can be followed.
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
Received on 2012-04-30 10:37:06 CEST