[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

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

From: Paul Burba <paulb_at_softlanding.com>
Date: 2006-05-16 14:41:26 CEST

Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> wrote on 05/15/2006 05:46:24 PM:

> Paul Burba wrote:
> > Philip Martin <philip@codematters.co.uk> wrote on 05/05/2006 06:18:37
> >>I think "checkout --force" is acceptable but I think the behaviour
> >>should be extended to "update --force" as well, after all, checkout
> >>and update share a lot of code.
> >
> > Philip,
> >
> > Agreed. Given it's similarities to update, should svn switch also
> > --force?
> "switch" is functionally similar to "update" so should generally support
> same optional behaviours.
> But, going back to Philip's post above, the fact that two things
> share a lot of
> code is no reason at all to make decisions about their functional design
> user interfaces. It may be that update (and switch) should support
> the "forced
> checkouts" behaviour,

Ok, maybe I agreed too readily with Philip's suggestion.

> but why?

I have no strong opinion either way. As far as I'm aware no one is
looking for such functionality in update/switch and I don't see any
obvious use cases.

Does anyone out there have a strong position on this?

I'll gladly go with the consensus view, if there is one.

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 Tue May 16 14:41:53 2006

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