Hi John/Alan/Molle,
As you all likely recall from the various "Takeover" threads, this topic
was sidelined once before due to disagreement over new or existing
subcommand, existing option, new option or no option, bandwith
optimizations, tastes great or less filling, etc., etc..
I'd really like to avoid that this time around and humbly ask for some
time to get my patch working. That said, here's my 2 cents re some of
your concerns:
John Peacock <jpeacock@rowman.com> wrote on 04/14/2006 04:07:35 PM:
> Paul Burba wrote:
> > Pouring over the takeover threads there seems to be a consensus that
> > checkout is the place for this functionality and that further
> > optimizations/improvements can wait. There is less agreement on the
> > question of whether co needs a new option --takeover, should use
--force,
> > or should just behave this way by default (my vote if for the last
> > option).
>
> I'd personally advocate that --force be required to absorb existing
> files into a
> in-place checkout, but it would be nice to have a .subversion/config
setting
> that made that the default (for those who wants it)...
As Mark mentioned there is good support for making this the default. That
said, the hard part (for me at least) is making it work at all, if it's
eventually decided to go with --force that sould be easy to do.
Alan Barrett <apb@cequrux.com> wrote on 04/15/2006 12:59:13 PM:
> On Sat, 15 Apr 2006, Mark Phippard wrote:
> > > I don't want that. I want the file to show as deleted locally ("!"
> > > in output from "svn status"). Later, I can choose whether to add
> > > the file locally (svn revert filename) or delete the file in the
> > > repository (svn delete filename ; svn commit filename).
> >
> > I think it would have to be a different subcommand to work that way,
>
> Why not just a different option to svn checkout?
Whether it's a different subcommand or another option to svn co, this is
really a separate feature IMHO.
"Molle Bestefich" <molle.bestefich@gmail.com> wrote on 04/16/2006 07:09:19
PM:
> If 'svn co --takeover' is not good enough and it really does warrant a
> new subcommand, then perhaps people will just need to get over it and
> add one.
Agreed, but...
> What Alan outlines sounds much cleaner and much more useful, even if
> it does require a new subcommand.
...again I think this functionality would be in addition to what I'm
doing, not a replacement for it. No?
Paul B.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Scanned for SoftLanding Systems, Inc. and SoftLanding Europe Plc by IBM Email Security Management Services powered by MessageLabs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 17 21:52:34 2006