On Sat, 2009-10-10 at 12:46 +0100, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 01:25:49PM +0200, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Sat, 10 Oct 2009 at 02:24 +0100:
> > > Greg Stein wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 19:35, Julian Foad wrote:
> > > > > Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > > > >> Log:
> > > > >> Moving a file should preserve its changelist. Add tests to this effect.
> > > > >
> > > > > In that case, "copy" should preserve the changelist on the copy too. I
> > > > > don't know whether it does, just saying.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure that I agree.
> > > >
> > > > The changelist is associated with the specific node, so (IMO) it
> > > > should move along with it.
> > > >
> > > > I don't see how a copy implies any similar kind of movement or
> > > > extension of the changelist.
> > >
> > > I suppose it depends on what kind of change you are tracking. I was
> > > thinking of a whole new file for feature X, and that if I copy it then
> > > it's likely that the copy is part of my feature X too. But if I'd just
> > > made a small text change in X and then copied it, I'm probably wanting
> > > the copy for some completely different purpose.
> > >
> >
> > It's (IMO) easier for users to remove the changelist if it follows the
> > copy than to remember to add it manually else. But I'm not convinced
> > either way yet.
>
> There are two possible and valid use cases here, so we should support both.
Yes, ...
> I agree that keeping changelist info on the copy by default is fine.
> But a new flag such as --ignore-changelist for svn 'move' and 'svn copy'
> to complement the default behaviour would be nice.
... but not necessarily by adding yet another switch. If the alternate
behaviour is less common and can be achieved in an obvious and easy way
using existing commands then that would be sufficient.
- Julian
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2407168
Received on 2009-10-13 23:14:36 CEST