On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 08:03:01PM +0000, Philip Martin wrote:
> Josef Wolf <jw@raven.inka.de> writes:
>
> > On Sun, Mar 07, 2004 at 10:57:46PM +0000, Philip Martin wrote:
> >
> >> >> That's a different error, it doesn't mention a file. I think you have
> >> >> an unversioned file or directory somewhere under server/config.
> >> > If there is an unversioned file, I'd expect "svn st" to mention it?
> >> server/config is unversioned, status won't look inside it.
> >>
> >> >> It is true, you ran "svn up" after the revert and it deleted
> >> >> server/config and made it unversioned.
> >> > If this were true, server/config should have been removed...
> >> No, because it contains an unversioned item.
> >
> > This is inconsistent.
>
> The basic principle is that update will only remove items from the
> disk if they can be retrieved from the repository. This means that if
> you have a versioned directory that contains an unversioned item, then
> update will not be able to remove that directory from the disk. It
> will make the versioned directory unversioned, which deletes it from
> the version control and will leave it on the disk.
But hey, the unversioned item in the versioned directory was on svn's
global-ignores list. Why don't update ignore this item and proceed with
the removal of the directory?
> The only problem I
> see is that the update aborts with a "left unversioned" error, I think
> it would be better to warn and continue the update.
Yes, of course.
--
-- Josef Wolf -- jw@raven.inka.de --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 8 21:34:27 2004