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

RE: [Issue 3474] making a new subdir, moving files into it and then renaming the subdir, breaks history of the moved files

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 12:30:49 +0200

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.martin_at_wandisco.com]
> Sent: woensdag 15 september 2010 12:08
> To: Julian Foad
> Cc: Daniel Shahaf; Johan Corveleyn; Subversion Development
> Subject: Re: [Issue 3474] making a new subdir, moving files into it and
> then renaming the subdir, breaks history of the moved files
>
> Julian Foad <julian.foad_at_wandisco.com> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 2010-09-14, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> >> Johan Corveleyn wrote on Sat, Sep 11, 2010 at 00:02:16 +0200:
> >> > On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:45 PM, <johanco_at_tigris.org> wrote:
> >> > > http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3474
> >> > >
> >> > > ------- Additional comments from johanco_at_tigris.org Fri Sep 10
> 14:45:17 -0700 2010 -------
> >> > > This issue seems to be fixed on trunk. The described scenario
> now goes as follows:
> >> > >
> >> > > (assuming we're in a working copy with a versioned file a.txt)
> >> > > [[[
> >> > > $ svn mkdir subdir
> >> > > A subdir # same as in 1.6
> >> > >
> >> > > $ svn mv a.txt subdir
> >> > > A subdir\a.txt
> >> > > D a.txt # same as in 1.6
> >> > >
> >> > > $ svn st
> >> > > A subdir
> >> > > A + subdir\a.txt
> >> > > D a.txt # same as in 1.6
> >> > >
> >> > > $ svn mv subdir subdir2
> >> > > A subdir2
> >> > > D subdir\a.txt
> >> > > D subdir # different! will ask on dev list
> about this.
> >> >
> >> > Is the above output an expected change of behavior?
> >
> > I believe that's a bug. It should display the same as it did in 1.6,
> > unless and until we decide to change it.
>
> The notification rules for 1.6 are a bit haphazard, I suspect some of
> the behaviour is not the result of deliberate decisions but simply a
> consequence of the way the code is structured.
>
> For example, in 1.6 move/delete notifies deletes for all nodes in a
> tree, apart from nodes within an added directory. There is no reason
> for that, beyond it being the way the code is written.
>
> For moves/copies the add notification is for all nodes in a tree apart
> from nodes within a copy source directory that is normal or copied.
> (I may not have got that exactly right!)
>
> These rules are not documented as far as I can see, so the question is
> whether we have to maintain this arbitrary behaviour.
>
> Perhaps we should simply notify for all nodes? Perhaps each
> individual client should be deciding which notifications to suppress?

+1 on moving the choice to the clients. (svn has different requirements then
clients like Subclipse).

Personally (and for AnkhSVN) I don't have an issue with notifying adds and
deletes for the root only. (The fact that it is an add or delete tells that
it's operation changes the state of all descendants)

        Bert
Received on 2010-09-15 12:32:31 CEST

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