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

Re: '@BASE keyword' vs. 'BASE database-tree' vs 'BASE conceptual-tree'

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:36:39 +0000

"Bert Huijben" <bert_at_qqmail.nl> writes:

> * svn cp/mv/add/rm
> These commands look at the current version of the working copy
> (Based on BASE overlayed with WORKING) and apply changes to
> WORKING. (And update your working copy and ACTUAL with' relevant
> changes')

How about the scenario in the other thread. I copy a directory
containing files: the new items have WORKING nodes but no BASE nodes.
That's what happens at present and it seems to be correct.

Now I delete one of the copied files; what should happen is that the
WORKING node gets modified to have WORKING.presence=not-present and
there is still no BASE node. That's not quite what happens at present
and it appears to be a bug.

What happens if I add something to replace the deleted file? Does the
WORKING node somehow record both the original copy and the new add?
There doesn't seem to be enough information stored: how would it cope
with the node kind changing for example?

Received on 2010-01-29 15:37:19 CET

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