Karl Fogel wrote:
> Chris Rose <chris.rose_at_messagingdirect.com> writes:
>> This is true as far as it goes, but it's certainly not clear that the
>> results are what would or should occur. The actions leading up to the
>> copy imply an expectation of selective copying, and it would be useful
>> if the other svn client operations honoured that.
>>
>> As you say, there's a workaround, but I'd rather see the client
>> support it directly. It might even be easy, although I don't know for
>> sure. Perhaps, as suggested, add a --retain-depth flag for copy/
>> move? It would make the set of client operations more complex -- you
>> would have to walk the tree and build up the copy on the server from
>> the set of entities that are on disk -- but it would reintroduce a CVS
>> ability: the ability to tag a subset of a directory.
>
> True, but our users have not been clamoring for that ability (as far
> as I can tell).
>
> I'm not dead set against a --retain-depth option if we hear from
> multiple users that they want it (and all want the same thing). But I
> don't think we should add it before 1.5. The depth features are new,
> we should see how people use them before adding more flags that we'll
> have to maintain "forever" :-).
>
> -Karl
That's a reasonable concern. I suppose that if I need it to do that
I'll patch it myself and maintain it as an internal branch; I can
propose the integration onto the trunk in a later revision if it looks
A) solid and B) useful.
--
Chris Rose
Developer Planet Consulting Group
(780) 577-8433
crose_at_planetci.com
Received on 2008-01-21 17:14:52 CET