Re: Replacing branch contents with another branch

On Wed, Aug 6, 2008 at 10:56 AM, Graham Bartlett <ratelect_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

> A workaround is that I delete my entire working branch, commit that, and then rebranch from trunk - possibly using
> the same name for the working branch, or possibly using a different branch name. That gets me working, but it's a
> very nasty hack. The most significant problem is that I lose version history from my pre-merged personal branch to
> my post-merged personal branch, so if I want to check what changed when I pulled down the latest version, that is
> not possible. A less significant problem but still a deal-killer on many systems is the simple mechanics of doing the
> delete, commit and rebranch. At my last company, the full tree was about 3GB, so a delete, commit and rebranch
> would keep your machine tied up for a very long time indeed. On a tree this size, the majority of the files clearly
> *won't* have changed, so a merge which just took the head-of-trunk versions of all changed files would turn a
> "forget-about-this-machine-for-the-rest-of-the-day" job into a "2-minutes-anytime-you-like" job.

You can do all this via URL and the update/switch of your working copy
is only going to pull the net changes. So there is no reason you need
to tie up your machine.

I'd say SVN already can do what you want and you do it the way you
suggested. I do not think this justifies some new command, and even
if one was created it would just do the delete + re-branch internally
anyway so nothing would behave differently.

-- 
Thanks
Mark Phippard
http://markphip.blogspot.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help_at_subversion.tigris.org