[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
PM:
> >>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
support
> > --force?
>
> "switch" is functionally similar to "update" so should generally support
the
> 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
or
> 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.