Re: Fwd: Re: mv != (cp && rm)

"Florin Iucha" <florin@iucha.net> writes:
> But "cp && rm" and "mv" are not equivalent because "mv" is atomic, while
> "cp && rm" is not. What if my host commits the cp and then the network blows
> up? You end up with two objects.

Right, my point exactly (except this can also happen intentionally).

> > What is your suggested behavior?
>
> Regardless of how the backend is implemented, the frontend should have an
> atomic "mv".

Okay, hmmm, I must be misunderstanding.

What *exact* behavior should be we looking for on the client side, and
on the server side, for "mv"?

Thanks,
-Karl

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:49 2006