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

Re: wc-ng base/working nodes in a copied tree

From: Philip Martin <philip.martin_at_wandisco.com>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 12:09:31 +0100

Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:

> Excluded in the wc is just that. It does not mean "delete upon commit." We
> have other statii to mean that.

In 1.6 when we copy a tree containing deleted=true we mark the copied
node so that it gets deleted upon commit. Are we going to change
that? If we mark the node excluded do we use some additional mark to
indicate delete?

> Imagine a local-copy of a large tree, simul with excluding a large portion
> so that u don't have to keep/copy as much locally. That doesn't mean
> "delete". It is simply an organizational mechanism.

When one tags such a working copy should the organizational mechanism
be included in the tag? I can see arguments for and against. The
current behaviour is not even consistent: exporting is sparse,
wc-to-wc copy is sparse, wc-to-repo copy is not sparse, commit is not
sparse.

However that's not really an urgent question. How we represent
replaces is more pressing.

-- 
Philip
Received on 2010-04-07 13:10:15 CEST

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