Re: [PATCH]: Was [PROPOSAL] Takeover Take 2

At 09:26 AM 08/05/2006 -0400, Paul Burba wrote:
>Perhaps "takeover" is the problem. It's really just a holdover term from
>Jonathan Gilbert's original patch.

I still think there's room for a separate "takeover" feature. I agree with
others on this list that such a feature would *not* fill in missing files,
and would *only* slide the text-base under what was already there. If such
a feature were to be added, it would make sense for it, too, to use 'T' to
refer to "taken-over" files.

For what it's worth, I actually still use my original patched version from
time to time, as I still have projects whose WCs I have not yet migrated
from VSS to SVN.

>P.S. FWIW I'd thought about using 'M Modified' when a path is obstructed.
> It makes a lot of sense (to me) for files, but for directories it seems
>misleading.

Doesn't 'M' during an update (which is what a checkout is) mean "Merged"?
Even if the uses were kept strictly segregated with respect to the
command-line options given, I think it'd still be somewhat uncomfortable to
have *the same block of code* (the 'update' engine) use the same status
letter for 2 different things.

Jonathan Gilbert

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon May 8 18:53:49 2006