Edmund Wong wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'm reading up on the issues and came across #898 which
> talks about rename = copy+delete (paraphrased summary).
>
> Perhaps I've misunderstood the whole issue, and please
> correct me if I'm wrong; but, what if rename = move?
> If I understand the issue correctly, copy + delete requires
> two 'activities' whereas move is a single activity which
> dispenses with doing two 'atomic' commits. (After all, a copy
> action is logged and a commit action is logged.) Perhaps a
> modified move? Then might this genereate IDs that are
> different (and won't conflict with future actions)?
>
> Sometimes I should learn more about patience, in my
> earnest to contribute without foreknowledge in the
> subject. This young grasshopper's cup is empty.
>
Yes, one of my pet gripes about our implementation of rename is that it
does not preserve "object identity", which means that you have to jump
through hoops to tell the difference between a branch, a copy, and a rename.
At one point we even had a true rename in the filesystem, but it turned
out to be sort of useless because the client and RA layers and editors
couldn't handle it.
This rename thing is not the only case of "let's make it look like it
works first" in Subversion. :)
-- Brane
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1559773
Received on 2009-04-06 10:24:02 CEST