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