[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Branch causes missing revs and errors merging

From: Frodak Baksik <frodak17_at_gmail.com>
Date: 2007-02-20 17:36:46 CET

On 2/20/07, Phillip Susi wrote:
> Frodak Baksik wrote:
> > Actually it won't because as according to the documentation the copy
> > command does not use peg revisions. Here, I'll quote it for you:
> >
> > From the book:
> > A second, more targeted strategy is not to use svn merge at all, but
> > rather the svn copy command.
> > Simply copy the exact revision and path "coordinate pair" from the
> > repository to your
> > working copy:
> > $ svn copy --revision 807 \
> > http://svn.example.com/repos/calc/trunk/real.c ./real.c
> > $ svn status
> > A + real.c
>
> Oh my, that is really messed up. The copy command then, uses the common
> parameter in a manner that is inconsistent with the way that common
> parameter is used with all other svn commands. The other commands
> resolve the name in the peg revision, then track the history back to the
> revision specified in -r. Copy interprets -r AS the peg revision. This
> inconsistency is poor behavior.

Wouldn't it have been nice to verify your statements, instead of
assuming I was just wrong.

> > This suggests to me if that you can't locate the item via e.g. ls
> > file@rev then it just doesn't exist in that revision. The behavior
> > you are implying is buggy seems to be an extension of this metaphor.
> >
> > I'll just end it with I don't agree with your interpretation of object
> > existence in regards to subversion even though your interpretation may
> > have been appropriate for other CM tools that I've used.
>
> If you accept that it is ok philosophically to have a hole in a timeline
> where a thing did exist, then doesn't, then does again, without having
> undergone creation or destruction in between, that is your choice I
> suppose, but it does break assumptions made by other parts of subversion
> ( the -rPREV I mentioned ) so it appears to not be intentional.
>

In the operations I've demonstrated I believe the object does get
destroyed and recreated, was I not clear enough? For example:
deleting a file in a directory destroys the file in that revision. I
think that this is true, I get the impression from your previous
statements, you don't agree. But, please don't make stuff up, its
kind of aggravating.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Feb 20 17:37:17 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.