Re: Extending new update --force switch to handle local additions -- also new related FAQ

Mark Phippard wrote:
> Paul Burba's recent patch added --force option to update. If the file was
> in an unversioned status in his working copy, and he used this option,
> then update would handle the situation. I think we should consider
> extending this feature to do the same thing if the file was a scheduled
> add in his working copy. Would it be OK if I enter an issue for this in
> the issue tracker? Does anyone have any strong objections to this idea
> and does not want it filed? Paul's previous changes do not lose any code
> and requires the user to specify --force, so if this could be done, I
> think we ought to do it. Especially, since the Subversion workflow led
> the user into this scenario.

I think your analysis is spot on; Subversion should do the right thing
in this case as well. The WC code can add the text-base from the
repository then compare it against the file on disk and determine
whether the local copy is "modified" vs the server, and display the
correct status without any user interaction. No information is lost at
any time (except the "schedule add").

> The attached FAQ talks about the situation and how to get out of it using
> svn revert followed by a delete or move. It does not talk about the
> upcoming --force option. I am not crazy about the wording of this FAQ as
> it seems too specific, so I'd appreciate a better way to write this.

I think the FAQ entry is a perfectly understandable way to explain the
current behavior and how to get around it.

John

-- 
John Peacock
Director of Information Research and Technology
Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group
4501 Forbes Boulevard
Suite H
Lanham, MD  20706
301-459-3366 x.5010
fax 301-429-5748
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org