> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> writes:
>
> > On 04/11/2011 05:53 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> >> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpilato_at_collab.net> writes:
> >>
> >>> But we obviously have precedent for supporting committed copies
> >>> of deeply switched things, so perhaps this isn't the best use
> of our time
> >>> right now.
> >>
> >> "Support" is generous, we only really support copied switches
> with no
> >> modifications:
> >>
> >> svnadmin create repo
> >> svn import -mm repo/format file://`pwd`/repo/A/B/f
> >> svn import -mm repo/format file://`pwd`/repo/A/B/C/g
> >> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc
> >> svn sw ^/A/B/C wc/A/B
> >> svn cp wc/A wc/X
> >>
> >> Using 1.6 the copy of the switch does not show up in status.
> Using 1.6
> >> the switch does not count as a local modification and gets
> ignored by
> >> the the commit harvester. After the commit 1.6 shows wc/X/B as
> >> switched.
> >>
> >> If I make a text modification within the switched subdir before
> commit:
> >>
> >> echo xx >> wc/X/B/g
> >>
> >> then the commit fails because it attempts to modify /X/B/g in
> the
> >> repoository and that file does not exist. The fact that 1.6
> attempts to
> >> commit modifications to the wrong file is a definite bug, if the
> path
> >> existed and the checksums matched the commit would go through.
> >>
> >> 1.7 treats the copy of the switch as a local modification that
> gets
> >> committed as a replace; after the commit there is no switch.
> The test
> >> is new in 1.7 and it's not clear to me that the new behaviour is
> >> correct.
> >
> > Man, my gut says to just not allow folks to copy trees with
> switched
> > children until we have a more-fully-formed vision regarding how
> to deal with
> > the overlap of the copy and switch concepts. (Of course, that
> sanity check
> > would need to *not* block copies of trees with file externals ...
> our
> > now-routine "when is switched not *really* switched" exception.)
> Yes, I
> > realize that this might be considered the cop-out position to
> take. I'm
> > okay with that.
I would even ask... why allow switched children? Is this really a heavily used feature of svn... or is it just a byproduct of the current WC implementation that a small percentage of users are taking advantage. I know people having switch children where I work has caused problems. Yes mostly due to lack of understanding.
If you want children to be from a different path than the root of the WC shouldn't you be using externals?
BOb
Received on 2011-04-11 19:05:25 CEST