On Thu, 26 Jan 2006, John Szakmeister wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:40, Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
> [snip]
> > I wonder why we support this case at all. I think the right fix should
> > have been to disable this case (which was, presumably, supported by
> > accident because the child was added after the check).
>
> The decision was made to allow it to work for the WC because 'svn cp
> url://path url://path' works for all 3 RA layers. It seemed like it was an
> intentional feature as a result, so we moved to support the WC case rather
> than removing the capability from the RA layers.
>
But the RA layers do support the general case, not just this special case,
don't they?
> Personally, I'd be fine with disabling the case, but I think we should be
> consistent and drop that ability from the RA interface as well.
>
Why? In the URL case, you won't wind up with a cycle because you copy an
existing version. See also issue #1367. I think r14401 should be reverted
and the check in copy.c fixed (which it will be automatically after my API
change).
Thanks,
//Peter
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 26 11:02:43 2006