[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: C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
Date: 2005-04-23 05:39:48 CEST

Greg Hudson <ghudson@MIT.EDU> writes:

> On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 23:23, Philip Martin wrote:
> > 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.
>
> On the contrary, the copyfrom solution seems like a botch unless all
> copies are really renames. Just because b is a copy of a doesn't mean
> that b should receive copies of modifications to a.

Besides all that fun stuff, I'm pretty sure we don't actually ever
*get* copyfrom information during an update.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 23 05:44:15 2005

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