Re: WC-NG: the trees BASE, WORKING and ACTUAL [was: svn commit: r33021 - branches/explore-wc/subversion/libsvn_wc]
Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>>> I submit that it is much more sensible to define WORKING as I suggested
>>> in my earlier mail. (i.e. having the disk file contents)
>> I agree. I had considered this in the course of composing my mail, but lost
>> it by the time I finished editing. I should have said
>> BASE + Subversion-managed changes + file content modifications = WORKING.
>> WORKING + non-textual-and-non-Subversiony-changes = ACTUAL.
> Well, I would have liked to put it that way, but how does that work in
> this scenario:
> $ rm file.txt
> $ mkdir file.txt
EVIL! I suppose you wanna pitch a fork() and a 'chmod 666' into that
recipe, too, right?! SICKO!
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2008-09-11 20:43:17 CEST
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev