Re: svn status -v
From: John Szakmeister <john_at_szakmeister.net>
Date: 2006-08-18 11:54:26 CEST
----- Branko Čibej <brane@xbc.nu> wrote:
Yeah, but the new reference to the object was committed in r2, and it really should reflect that--even if it is the same underlying object. :-)
>
I think the answer is "no." I think it's fine that we do these things underneath the hood to conserve space, maintain history, etc. But we should always be exposing things that makes the most sense to users. In this case, one could deduce that d2/f existed before d2/... which is just weird. :-)
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
|
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.
This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.