On 5/16/06, Paul Burba <paulb@softlanding.com> wrote:
> 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'd definitely want the functionality in update, maybe even more so
than in checkout. Use case I can think of is when someone adds a
directory or file to the repository that was previously an unversioned
file in multiple people's working copies. Right now I believe the
update with that addition will fail because there is a file/directory
in the way, which you have to manually move aside for the update to
finish. Then usually I just end up copying back the file I had. With
this functionality you would only have to specify the --force option.
- Jody
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 16 21:37:38 2006