Fwd: Re: mv != (cp && rm)
From: Florin Iucha <florin_at_iucha.net>
Date: 2001-11-28 02:34:19 CET
On Tue, Nov 27, 2001 at 07:03:04PM -0600, Karl Fogel wrote:
Regardless, it should respect the principle of least astonishment...
[Even ms-(dos|win(nt)?) has atomic "ren". And NT has a silly utility|daemon
> In Subversion, it is possible to commit one
You are talking here about the frontend, right?
It is possible for the backend to implement "mv" as "cp && rm" if and only
But "cp && rm" and "mv" are not equivalent because "mv" is atomic, while
> What is your suggested behavior?
Regardless of how the backend is implemented, the frontend should have an
-- "If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is." 41A9 2BDE 8E11 F1C5 87A6 03EE 34B3 E075 3B90 DFE4
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.