Re: *Update* correctness vs speed (was: [Issue 2746] New - update overwrites w/o warning local modification if local timestamp did not change)

On Saturday 24 March 2007 23:47, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> On 3/24/07, Justin Erenkrantz <justin@erenkrantz.com> wrote:
> > On 3/24/07, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > I wasn't talking about making Subversion in general slower and more
> > > exact by doing a full file compare: status, commit and other wc
> > > operations would still be as slow/fast as they are today. What I *was*
> > No, they'd have to do full compares as well ...
> Well, one could argue that status won't ever cause dataloss when not
> being exact, whereas update will. I don't call that half-harted, I'd
> call it 'thorough when required, fast when possible'.
FSVS has such an option -- -C for checksum.
Active for commit and update, optional for status.
There's even a test for that scenario (013_manber)!

Regards,

Phil

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Mar 26 08:46:52 2007