> From: mark benedetto king [mailto:bking@inquira.com]
> Sent: 17 September 2002 17:04
> On Tue, Sep 17, 2002 at 02:39:46PM +0200, Sander Striker wrote:
> > > From: sussman@collab.net [mailto:sussman@collab.net]
> > > Sent: 17 September 2002 14:19
> >
> > > Timothee Besset <ttimo@idsoftware.com> writes:
> > >
> > > > I encountered something, I don't know if it's intended behaviour or an
> > > > oversight:
> > >
> > > Yes, it's intended behavior.
> > >
> > > Think about it: there's no way that 'svn switch' knows that the two
> > > URLs are really the same repository, or same location. 'svn switch',
> > > therefore, operates exactly the same way as 'svn update', 'svn merge',
> > > and 'svn diff': it compares two URLs, and applies the differences to
> > > your working copy.
> > >
> > > However, maybe the user might be able to give a hint here. Maybe some
> > > optional switch could be used to mean "just rewrite all of the urls
> > > within .svn/entries files, and do nothing else." What do others
> > > think?
> >
> > +1. By using the --force flag?
> >
>
> +1 on the option. Not so sure about using "--force" to do it, especially
> since we might want --force for something else, later.
>
> What about "--relocate"?
We have somekind of --dont-connect-to-the-network switch, right?
Using that could be an option aswell.
"Switch this working copy, don't bother to check the new base url,
I know this is right."
Sander
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Sep 17 17:16:46 2002