Eric Gillespie <epg_at_pretzelnet.org> writes:
> Karl Fogel <kfogel_at_red-bean.com> writes:
>> It may be buggy, but it is an intended feature. I do such switches all
>> the time. In fact they are the majority of switches I perform (because
>> I'm switching from one branch to another, or trunk to/from a branch).
>
> I think the cost of this feature outweighs any utility.
>
> svn sw ^/branches => OOPS
>
> That sucks even on a sane-sized project. On a big ball of mud?
> CRIPES! So what do poor lusers do after it chugs along for way
> too long? They interrupt it. Hello wc corruption.
>
> I lost count of the number of folks at Lexmark who were burned by this.
I think we're talking about different things here.
The thing that I thought was being claimed as "rare and non-useful" is
running switch in cwd, especially when cwd is the top of a project
working copy tree. I rebutted, claiming it is a common case.
In the case you're talking about above, it doesn't matter whether you
run switch on implied '.' or give it an arg -- the problem is the
mismatch of tree levels (and the quantity of stuffed to be switched to).
I'm all for giving Subversion more smarts as to which switches are good
and which are (probably) mistakes. But that has nothing to do with the
cwd question, AFAICT.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe_at_subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help_at_subversion.tigris.org
Received on 2008-04-24 03:51:10 CEST