Karl Fogel wrote:
> Jeff Putsch <putsch@mxim.com> writes:
>
>> o Each creates a file called "baz"
>>
>> o Each "adds" a file called "baz" (now it's marked locally for adding)
>>
>> o u2 commits baz
>>
>> o u1 tries to commit baz, it fails as it should
>>
>> o u1 tries to update baz, it fails until baz is moved out of the way
>>The last item/behavior seems like a bug to me. u1's update of baz from
>>the repository should have cleared the "add" setting in the local
>>working copy, but it doesn't.
>
>
> Well, it shouldn't clear an `add' setting, but it should respect that
> setting and claim a conflict, thus requiring the user to clear the add
> setting before the update will succeed.
I've probably missed something. Why do you prefer this behaviour? Won't
be it better to handle this almost like ordinary conflicts: put
repository version into working copy under fancy name, without changing
the original one, and then let the user choose whatever version he
likes. I guess it's not possible to merge them in the usual way, because
there's no common base, but moving file out of the way is inconvenient.
I did not like this in CVS.
- Volodya
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Sep 12 08:54:03 2002