[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Tree conflicts on unversioned items?

From: Neels J. Hofmeyr <neels_at_elego.de>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 02:33:32 +0200

Greg Stein wrote:
> Right. I think it is a tree conflict because svn can't delete the
> directory -- there are mods or unversioned items in there. Since it
> can't complete the deletion, I think it should just leave it untouched
> and mark it as conflicted.
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Erik Huelsmann <ehuels_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> When an update/switch tries to delete a file or directory with local
>> modifications, or - in case of a directory - with unversioned files in
>> it, currently Subversion will report it 'leaves behind an unversioned
>> item' in the working copy.
>> Greg and I were talking just now that this may be considered a tree
>> conflict too. Have you thought about these cases? Especially the
>> directory case seems interesting.

We've thought about the file-delete on update/switch (it reports a
tree-conflict with the reason "locally edited"). But the directory case *is*

In theory I fully agree with raising a conflict for a directory with
unversioned files, on all of `svn rm' and the related up/sw, ci, merge. But
what about the user experience:

Say my editor happens to create backup files or there's some other reason
why unversioned files regularly show up in my wc (build system, stupidity,
...). So if I want to delete a directory, I have to a) manually remove
unversioned files first, or b) checkout a separate working copy, abandoning
the old one (because updating would bring the same tree-conflict), or c)
manually file-system-rm-rf. So would all other developers trying to update.
And they would first have to understand what's going on, too. Well, maybe
that's a good thing. Who said --force? I didn't.

...and what about explicitly ignored files: if they still hang around,
wouldn't most people expect subversion not to conflict with them? They don't
show up as `?' lines, some people might really have trouble here.

So, this is a dumb-user trap and possible power-user annoyance. (Especially
since updating to such a delete would have to cause tree-conflicts.) Then
again, leaving an almost-empty directory skeleton lying around is also a
potential user trap / annoyance later on.

I guess I'm for tree-conflicting with an option turn-on-able to allow for
the old behaviour, which some might depend on. Another such option to madly
delete unversioned items might be useful to some, too.

--allow-keep-unversioned and
or something. What do you think?


>> Bye,
>> Erik.
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 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

Neels Hofmeyr -- elego Software Solutions GmbH
Gustav-Meyer-Allee 25 / Gebäude 12, 13355 Berlin, Germany
phone: +49 30 23458696  mobile: +49 177 2345869  fax: +49 30 23458695
http://www.elegosoft.com | Geschäftsführer: Olaf Wagner | Sitz: Berlin
Handelsreg: Amtsgericht Charlottenburg HRB 77719 | USt-IdNr: DE163214194

Received on 2008-10-17 02:34:53 CEST

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.