On Wed, 2004-03-31 at 10:53, Joe Drew wrote:
> Why shouldn't I be able to say "svn cp -r FOO file.c ."? Subversion should
> know enough to look in the repository for this.
Yes, I agree. In a perfect, world, this is about 1 of 27 ways in which
the svn client could attempt to read the user's mind and be more
friendly.
At the moment, however, the mere act of referring to a working-copy
object is *exactly* equivalent to asking svn to look for the object in
an .svn/entries/ file. But if the object is deleted, it's not in the
entries file anymore. Until we change this implementation detail,
however, deleted items must be resurrected by talking directly to the
repository.
> > What's misleading here? You've asked for a path that doesn't exist in
> > revision 4, and that's exactly what it told you.
>
> The misleading bit is that it acts differently from PREV/COMMITTED. There's
> no indication in any documents that I've read (and, in fact,
> PREV/COMMITTED's mention in the book seems to say the opposite) that it
> relies on a working copy.
>
What's unclear in the book? I'd like to understand the source of
confusion. Yes, you're right, PREV and COMMITTED "rely on a working
copy". That is, the require a *working object* (i.e. something in an
.svn/entries file) in order to be converted into normal numbers. That's
why they don't work on URLs. Hopefully, that's what we've documented.
Again, though: I will grant you that these two keywords *could* be
hitting the repository URLs as a means of converting the keywords into
real numbers. Perhaps we should file this as an enhancement request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 31 19:07:20 2004