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

Re: Medium-term roadmap: 1.3, 1.4, 1.5.

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2005-04-23 05:23:58 CEST

John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> writes:

> On Friday 22 April 2005 20:01, Philip Martin wrote:
>>
>> Are atomic renames really that attractive, or is merge tracking what
>> you really want?
>
> I actually want both. We've run into situations when we're making changes
> to the tree that updates didn't make into the new file, and we had to go
> back and fix that.

So you don't want atomic rename per se, you really want local mods to
move within the working copy. Atomic rename is probably one way to
achieve that, but I don't think it's the only way, I think the
copyfrom information recieved during an update could be used to copy
local mods within the working copy. In cases where the tree change
really is a copy, rather than a move, the copyfrom solution might be
superior.

-- 
Philip Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 23 05:24:45 2005

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