Paul Burba <email@example.com> wrote on 08/25/2006 12:48:50 PM:
> firstname.lastname@example.org wrote on 08/24/2006 11:45:22 AM:
> > On 8/24/06, Ivan Zhakov <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > On 8/24/06, Garrett Rooney <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > On 8/23/06, Paul Burba <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Subversion prevents unforced moves not only of unversioned
> > paths, but also
> > > > > of locally modified paths. Copy allows both of these cases
> > *without* the
> > > > > --force option (actually copy doesn't support --force at all).
> > > > > the call to svn_client__can_delete() in wc_to_wc_copy() removes
> > > > > requirement for --force. I'm not sure why we ever did this
> we are
> > > > > moving items, not truly deleting them, unlike the only other
> > > > > svn_client__can_delete() in svn_client__wc_delete() where such a
> > > > > makes some sense.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any objections to this change?
> > > >
> > > > One potential problem that I ran across while playing with this is
> > > > that while move now carries unversioned files along with it, they
> > > > won't be put back after a revert, they're left in the unversioned
> > > > destination directory.
> > > >
> > > > Not sure if that's a showstopper or not...
> > > >
> > > Yes, after further meditation I've found the same problem. But as
> > > I'm not sure if that's problem or not. Any thoughts?
> > I lean towards "not a problem", I mean as Paul pointed out when
> > talking about this on IRC, it's not like a revert of a copy will
> > remove unversioned files that it copied from another tree because it
> > knows you've got another copy someplace...
> > -garrett
> Hi All,
> It seems there are no objections thus far to this patch here or in IRC.
> I'd like to commit, so if anyone has any outstanding concerns please let
> me know.
> Three things to keep in mind if you *don't* like this change:
> * svn copy doesn't require force to move unversioned or locally modified
> * Like svn delete, svn move deletes unversioned/locally modified items,
> but they are still copied somewhere else in the WC, so they are not
> * revert's behavior on moved unversioned/locally modified items is
> unchanged, this patch is simply doing away with the need for --force to
> make such a move in the first place.
One outstanding issue remains, should the --force option be removed for
svn move? It is no longer used for anything and I see no reason to
continue supporting it.
To unsubscribe, e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org
For additional commands, e-mail: email@example.com
Received on Tue Sep 5 16:20:54 2006