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

Re: Possible issue triggered by repos reorg (including repro script)

From: Greg Hudson <ghudson_at_MIT.EDU>
Date: 2005-04-17 07:34:55 CEST

On Sat, 2005-04-16 at 21:44, C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Ben Collins-Sussman <sussman@collab.net> writes:
>
> > The help text could be improved. I just added more explanation to
> > chapter 9 in the svn book as well.
>
> 'relocate' should have been its own subcommand, distancing itself from
> the 'switch' operation.

I continue to be mystified at the perception that this would have
helped. We provide an unsafe operation, confusingly similar in
semantics to another operation. Everyone who uses the wrong operation
cites the semantic description of the operations. And yet you (and some
others) think the major problem is its name?

All we would have accomplished by providing "svn relocate" would be
increasing the command count, and thus the Subversion learning curve.
We'd have just as many users confusing relocate with a regular switch.

> svn_error_t *svn_ra_get_repos_root (svn_ra_session_t *session,
> const char **url,
> apr_pool_t *pool);

svn switch --relocate hits the network against the new repository, but
not the old one. I don't think finding the root of the new repository
would be enough for a safety check.

Anyway, see http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2104 for
my roadmap of how to get out of this mess.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 17 07:35:55 2005

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