[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Some design questions (once more)

From: Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_newton.ch.collab.net>
Date: 2002-04-25 23:35:19 CEST

Josef Wolf <jw@raven.inka.de> writes:
> As I mentioned in my original mail you would be right if the command
> were "svn ci write/search.c". But "svn ci" has the semantics of
> "commit everything". In this case the server should refuse the commit,
> because the up-to-date-test failed. Please note that my Proposal
> explicitly excluded the case where you commit only a subset of files.

No, the server-side up-to-date test only fails if the *particular*
targets being committed have been changed in the repository. It's
okay for other files, not being committed by A, to have been changed
by B. A's commit will not fail. It doesn't matter if A specific the
targets explicitly or not.

You seem to be proposing that "svn ci" also do an update. That seems
bad, far more unexpected than the current behavior (which was
deliberately designed to match CVS, because we like its behavior in
this situation). Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you are saying,
though.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Apr 25 23:33:34 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.