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

Re: svn commit: r966774 - /subversion/branches/issue-2779-dev/subversion/libsvn_client/update. c

From: Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de>
Date: Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:02:01 +0200

On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 09:53:02PM +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Stefan Sperling wrote on Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 20:11:23 +0200:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2010 at 07:59:42PM +0200, Bert Huijben wrote:
> > > Shouldn't we relocate the complete working copy, starting by the working copy root instead of just the operation anchor?
> >
>
> So "cd notes; svn up commit-access-templates" would relocate my entire trunk wc?
>
> At the least, this departs from current semantics of svn. I won't speak for
> "many users", but I, for one, would be surprised if svn started touching the
> parent of the dir I specified as target.
>
> If this change is made, can we please add the appropriate big red letters
> somewhere?

This is svn switch --relocate, not svn switch.

If you switch --relocate a working copy, you are pointing to a different
server. It makes sense to relocate the entire working copy.
If you want nested working copies pointing to different servers,
you'd use an external.

Switched subtrees (i.e. without --relocate) are different, because we know
for certain that they are from the same repository.

Stefan
Received on 2010-07-22 21:02:51 CEST

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