From: Greg Ward [mailto:gward@mems-exchange.org]
On 21 January 2003, Branko ??ibej said:
Yes. Renaming a node should not affect its history.
But I *like* to see a log entry saying Renamed from foo to
bar or Moved from ../foo to here, even if no lines of
content changed in that revision.
The effect of a
cp+rm is to create a new branch in the node's history (and
remove an
cp+old
one); that is obviously wrong, because, under our model, a
rename does
not constitute a modification of the node, only a
modification of its
(old and new) parent directory. In simple terms, after an
svn mv in
a clean working copy, svn st should show one or two modified
directories, but no modified files.
Ahh, I understand your rationale for why a rename should not
affect the history of the renamed object. I think you're
putting purity ahead of practicality here. Renaming a file
is an important event in its history, and IMHO worthy of logging.
No he's not acutally. Logging the action is important as well. Renames
should be an atomic action, and they should be logged as such. No rocket
science there. The really annoying part with renames is in the WC half
of the equation. The other half is making sure both parts of a move get
committed at once, and branch merge file rename handling that's
efficient on the WC.
(Of course, the user would want to know that the file was moved, so
svn st should show something for usability's sake; but
what it shows
should not be a modified state but a renamed state.
That means yet
another status letter, but perhaps not.)
And here, you're putting practicality ahead of purity!
UIs are always fickle. :)
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 14 02:07:20 2006