Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
> > If I overwrite a destination by accident, it is not obvious that it
> > has happened. If the copy fails because the destination exists I get
> > a visible error. To my mind the latter behaviour is preferrable, and
> > the consistency with commit reinforces my view.
>
> Exactly. Silent overwrites *never* happen with ordinary commits. And
> given that 'svn cp URL URL' is just a commit as well, I tend to think
> it should behave the same.
>
> > Having a '--force' flag to allow overwriting would be acceptable
> > (maybe even ideal), but I don't see it as necessary.
>
> If we decide to do this, then it's a feature that will become part of
> 'svn commit' itself... i.e. "commit, but don't do out-of-dateness
> checks". Is that really desirable? Do people really want to be able
> to commit and silently overwrite things? This has the potential to
> clobber other people's changes that you've never seen.
Thanks, Ben, for summarizing my thoughts. +1.
Guns don't kill people; people kill people -- but that doesn't mean we
hand out loaded guns as party favors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 26 16:00:39 2002