Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
> On Apr 16, 2005, at 6:02 PM, Ingo Adler wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It's not marked as a conflict, but the data isn't lost either. The
>>> file becomes unversioned.
>>
>>
>> Information is lost. Is data information?
>
>
> How is information lost? Subversion certainly isn't losing any
> information. The edited file becomes unversioned, but nothing's
> *deleting* that data.
Ben, don't you think you're taking a slightly too relaxed view of this
bug? Let's take a slightly more complex change, where the file gets both
renamed and modified in the repository. You update, your local chages
become unversioned ... and there's no way to merge the changes into the
renamed file without using external diff/patch tools. I call that
fundamentally broken.
Now I'm not saying a fix would be trivial, but we should certainly do
something about it.
> Another possible solution is to just have 'svn update' bail out when
> it tries to delete a file that has local edits. It's already bails
> out when it tries to add a file that already exists. Maybe that's
> just the simplest thing to do... in both cases, the user has to move
> the file out of the way before resuming the update.
This could work, *if* the user could just reproduce the "svn mv" locally
and have the next update merge the contents of the renamed file.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 17 04:25:22 2005