Re: svn merge on branches containing moved files/directories

On Mar 16, 2005, at 10:23 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:

> On Mar 16, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Scott Palmer wrote:
>
>> I had always assumed that under the hood merge (or at least half of
>> it) was implemented with the same code that does update.
>
> Nope, completely different code.
>
> There's a huge difference: update actually changes the *foundation*
> of your working copy...

Ah, of course.

>> How is it that a merge is able to delete a modified file where an
>> update does not?
>
> Merge doesn't delete the file, it merely *schedules* a deletion, as if
> it had typed 'svn rm file'. The scheduling is revertable, or, if the
> user likes it, can commit, and then the deletion is "real".

So when Volker wrote:

> As described in the initial example: Both files in question, the
> changed one and the added one, are deleted by svn, i.e. no longer
> there. There are not just 'unversioned'. There are no files any more
> which can be marked as '?' and taken care of later.

he was mistaken?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 17 14:19:55 2005