[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] FAQ suggestion - another minor proposal

From: Folker Schamel <schamel23_at_spinor.com>
Date: 2004-09-01 23:57:32 CEST

kfogel@collab.net wrote:

> Folker Schamel <schamel23@spinor.com> writes:
>>The "*" variant doesn't do anything else; it does it only in a simpler way.
> Not quite. "*" includes files whose case is fine, but which may
> receive updates from the server simply because they're out of date.
> The same thing could happen to the case-problematic files, of course,
> but at least it will be limited to them.

Take a look at the SECOND command:
Also the current FAQ suggests to use a "update" == "update ."
after the "update file.java", and therefore you anyway update everything.

And its hard to get rid of it, except you don't want to get the
correct versions of the problematic files, but then people
anyway wouldn't run into the "file is alreay existing" error,
and therefor don't have a problem to fix anyway,
and therefore won't do anything.

And as far as I know, "update -N" is problematic, right?

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Sep 1 23:57:43 2004

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.