Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:
> I think only your perspective as implementor can justify your position
> that they are two completely different operations. Both commands
> repoint an existing working directory to a different location.
> Certainly, one repoints it at a different repository and one repoints it
> at a different location within the repository, which are very different
> operations internally, but it's very difficult as a user to mentally
> separate those concepts.
And one does not have update-like behavior, with update-like results
and update-like output. The other does.
I don't think it's my perspective as an implementor that is governing
my thinking here. It's my perspective as a user of Subversion, as
someone who has observed that 'svn switch' and 'svn switch --relocate'
*behave* in two completely different fashions, with the *only*
commonality of note being that they both happen to tweak working copy
URLs into looking somewhat different.
I'm trying to see if there is perhaps a cart/horse thing going on my
head. I can say that the fact that 'svn switch' is implementation-
wise very similar to checkout and update is because its behavior is
very similar to checkout and update, which lends itself to code
sharing. Or I can say that because we shared lots of code, the
behavior of these commands is similar. I'm not able to objectively
say which is really true to me.
> > Instead of letting folks mentally divide subcommands into those which
> > are and aren't part of daily life, are and aren't "unsafe"
>
> Why do you keep quoting "unsafe"?
Because I am not entirely familiar with its lack of safety.
> It's very simple: we botched the relocate implementation by not
> adding enough argument checking, and as a result it's unsafe.
[...]
And now I *am* familiar. Thanks! :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sun Apr 17 19:31:06 2005