History:
* Checkout and update used to be different codepaths. Neither was
restartable. Right before launching 1.0, we decided this was a
showstopper.
* kfogel and I made checkout/update into a single codepath which was
inherently restartable. A checkout just creates a working copy with
"all items missing", and requests an update.
* A side-effect of this change, it turned out that checkouts were
restartable by *either* 'co' or 'up'... they both ended up invoking
the same codepath. We decided it was nifty cool to be so flexible,
and left the side-effect alone.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM, David Glasser <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> wrote:
> I see; Issue #730. Of course, checkout/update were implemented
> differently back then I think; now you can just restart checkouts with
> an update.
>
> --dave
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:28 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> > This was not an oversight, it was a deliberate design decision. I believe
> > the enhancement issue's summary was something to the effect of "checkouts
> > should be restartable".
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris Rose wrote:
> > > In our nightly builds it's convenient to use checkout as an update as
> > > well; we can choose to blow away our source code and our nightly code
> > > update scripts Just Work(tm) despite the absence of a checked out copy.
> > >
> > > It's not a fundamentally critical feature, to be sure, but it's nice in
> > > this case.
> > >
> > > David Glasser wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Eric Gillespie <epg_at_pretzelnet.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> "David Glasser" <glasser_at_davidglasser.net> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>> > That doesn't mean that the UI has to reflect this implementation. I
> > >>> > don't see why --accept is useful for checkout; I think it should be
> > >>> > removed.
> > >>>
> > >>> The UI already does. Unless you change 'svn checkout URL existing-wc'
> > >>> to error out instead of updating it.
> > >>
> > >> Sure, I think the fact that this works is a bug. checkout and update
> > >> are conceptually different operations, no matter how our current
> > >> wc/client code works. A more structured working copy would treat them
> > >> rather differently. I don't see why we should go out of our way to
> > >> encourage people to use checkout as update, even if it happens to work
> > >> (and I'd be OK with making it be an error).
> > >>
> > >> Is there any useful reason to use "svn checkout URL existing-wc"?
> > >>
> > >> --dave
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
> > CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-01 21:58:19 CEST