On Friday 22 April 2005 23:23, Philip Martin wrote:
> 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.
I kind of lumped that stuff together, but yes, I really want updates to
follow to it's new home in someone's working copy. Right now, it updates
the old location, but it's marked for deletion and no one has a clue that
the file was updated (other than the update output... but it quickly
flies by). Then we commit the file, effectively clobbering the new
contents with the old because the new file didn't receive the updates.
That's the crux of the issue for our team.
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Apr 23 11:00:31 2005