Seems I'm posting just to agree a lot, lately, but...
+1 w/ Greg and Tripp below (and, I suspect, with Ben as well, as he
was probably just playing devil's advocate).
Mixed revision working copies do not imply that the user wants every
commit to make the repository reflect that same mixture of
Commits should transmit local _changes_, not local "arrangements"
(sorry, that's kind of a vague principle, but you know what I mean).
Greg Stein <email@example.com> writes:
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2001 at 07:39:12AM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> > Philosophical question about commits.
> > * Suppose I have a working copy at revision 3, and the head revision
> > on the repository is 10.
> > * Suppose a file "foo/bar/baz.c" has a local change. So lazily, I
> > type 'svn ci foo/bar'.
> > * However, suppose that baz.c has a sibling subdir, "foo/bar/bop/", at
> > revision 5.
> > Here's the issue: should my commit cause revision 5 of foo/bar/bop/ to
> > be merged into the head revision?
> Absolutely not.
> > Or should it do *nothing* but
> > create a new revision of baz.c?
> I'm with Tripp on this one. This is the only viable and sensible thing to
> do. We don't want the client pulling old revs up to the latest tree.
> Greg Stein, http://www.lyra.org/
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:26 2006