John Peacock <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote on 08/10/2006 04:04:01 PM:
> Mark Phippard wrote:
> > Paul Burba's recent patch added --force option to update. If the file
> > 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
> > add in his working copy. Would it be OK if I enter an issue for this
> > the issue tracker? Does anyone have any strong objections to this
> > and does not want it filed? Paul's previous changes do not lose any
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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.
You are making me blush. :)
I think my main concern was whether someone with the problem would find
this FAQ or not. I am not sure if they would connect the update problem
with the patch creation or not. So I was wondering whether a bit more
could be added to make it easier to find in different scenarios.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: email@example.com
For additional commands, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
Received on Thu Aug 10 22:37:54 2006