Karl Fogel <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> Before the update, the local A is just a modified file based on
> version 10 of A. This was not changed by the renaming to and from B.
> So the update should behave accordingly.
Erg, I disagree. You've hit on the central issue: copying a file to B
and renaming it back again *are* explicit actions -- they're
full-fledged, intentional "local changes". As a user, I would be
mighty pissed if Subversion decided that it was ok to ignore my local
modifications and assume I'm not up-to-date -- "oh, that copy and
rename? That didn't really do anything useful, so I'm just going to
pretend they never happened."
Maybe it's a matter of personal taste, but I hate it when software
tries to second-guess a user's intentions. Local mods are local mods,
whether they're silly or not; in Jim's example, the working copy is
*already* up-to-date. Why? Because nobody has changed the
repository -- end of story.
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:07 2006