Re: svn commit: r1089856 - /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/switch_tests.py

On 04/07/2011 08:44 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> I'm not really sure how a copied switch should behave when committed, is
> the above correct?

This use-case doesn't even make sense to me. Switch is a working copy
operation concept -- causing local elements to reflect an alternate line of
history.

Forgetting the copy operation for a second, if you simply commit in a
working copy that has a switched subdir, there's no "coalescing" of the tree
on the server side -- changes made in the subdir wind up in the repos tree
to which the subdir is switched, and changes made outside the subdir wind up
in their respective original repos locations. Now we add 'copy' to this
situation -- a copy of a tree with a switched subdir. I rather think that
this should behave as if it was a BASE deep copy with the switches
re-applied after the copy. In other words, when looking at the copy result,
switch followed by copy should have the same effect as copy followed by
switch, or something like that. This also implies that, for user sanity, we
should disallow WC-to-REPOS copies of trees containing switched items.

-- 
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet   <>   www.collab.net   <>   Distributed Development On Demand