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

Re: unhappy with 'svn mv'

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2008 20:31:09 +0000

On Tue, Dec 09, 2008 at 10:48:21AM -0600, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> Not me, but the OpenOffice guys are:
> http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/mistaking_version_control_for_collaboration
> Thought it was interesting to post here. I know that for 1.5, I
> *tried* to solve this problem partially, and glasser did a bunch of
> work on it too. Do we have any happy progress to report on this,
> should we want to respond to his blog?

Ben, can you translate this part so other Subversion developers
can understand it (apparently you do understand it)?

  I moved connectivity/source/drivers/odbc/OPreparedStatement.cxx to connectiviy/
  source/drivers/odbcbase/OPreparedStatement.cxx (note odbc vs.
  odbcbase) on CWS sb102 (then based on DEV300m35) and then rebased the
  CWS to DEV300m37.

What are CWS, sb102, DEV300m35, and DEV300m37?
Dry cleaner model numbers? Words from some leet-speak dialect?
Branches? Tags?

Without knowing the exact details, it looks like a tree conflict problem
(but I'm not sure because I don't understand what merge is being done).

In any case, the fact that Subversion does not support proper moves yet
is well documented. Our feature list says:
"Renaming is also a versioned operation, albeit with some quirks."

So all I can really answer to this is:

"Apparently, you mistook 'svn move' for something it's not.
Wait for tree conflicts in 1.6 and see if that fixes your problem.
Else, wait for true renames (if they ever happen).
Or use a different tool (but not Mercurial, it has the same problem)."


Received on 2008-12-09 21:31:52 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.