Mark Phippard wrote:
> On 8/7/07, Senthil Kumaran S <senthil@collab.net> wrote:
>> I am attaching a shell script along with this mail which helps in
>> explaining a scenario which fails when --depth is used along with switch
>> --relocate.
>>
>> If you look at the two results at the end of the script run, we can see
>> that both files and immediates are doing the same job. IMHO if we do a
>> --depth files then we should not get the url changed for the "."
>> directory. If both immediates and files are doing the same job in case
>> of switch --relocate then they must be unified or we need to document
>> that in the help message.
>
> I wonder a bit whether we ought to even support this combination. In
> 1.4, did we support a --non-recursive option with --relocate? It
> seems like an odd use-case.
It's a ridiculous use-case which points (once again) to the silliness of
piggybacking our relocation logic onto the 'svn switch' subcommand. But
what's done is done, right?
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Tue Aug 7 16:15:06 2007