> From: William Uther [mailto:will+@cs.cmu.edu]
> Sent: 22 April 2002 18:27
> On 22/4/02 8:19 AM, "Philip Martin" <philip@codematters.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Here's how I would like 'svn rm' to work: after 'svn rm' the files are
> > always removed. However 'svn rm' first checks for modifications and if
> > there are any the command fails. When 'svn rm' fails either the
> > --force flag can be used or 'svn revert' can be used first to remove
> > the modifications. This applies both to files and file properties,
> > and also to directories, in which case the children of the directory
> > are checked as well.
>
> I'll have a look at it next time I get some free time :)
>
> Making it work that way for files shouldn't be too hard. Making it work for
> dirs will require me to learn more about svn *gasp*.
>
> How would you have 'svn rm' work on a directory that has unversioned files
> in it? There are three obvious options I can see:
>
> I) Just Do It. This possibly loses info - probably the wrong thing to do.
With --force.
> II) Error - treat it the same as as a modified file.
Normal usage. To quote Philip from his text above:
"This applies both to files and file properties,
and also to directories, in which case the children of the directory
are checked as well."
> III) Remove all the versioned files and just leave a trail down to the
> unversioned file. This is what the docs specify for a delete during an
> update. It has the problem that it doesn't remove the directory.
-1.
> I'm leaning towards II, with the --force flag to switch to I.
>
> Later,
>
> \x/ill :-}
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 22 18:33:48 2002