On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 10:11:03PM +0200, Neels J Hofmeyr wrote:
> Discussing 'svn info' output:
> What do you think, for moved-here items, should we rename "Copied From URL"
> and "Copied From Rev" to "Moved From *"? Leaving "Copied From *" as-is will
> be confusing to the average user person...
> #svn: "lol it says both copied and moved !?!1! Should be a tree conflict!1!"
> Same discussion pending for --xml output.
No, please let's not conflate copyfrom information with move information.
Move information pertains to the working copy.
It specifies how nodes were moved relative to the BASE tree.
Copyfrom information pertains to the repository.
I don't think there will be moved-from/moved-to info in the repository
because this would require a fix for issue #898 (which I don't intend to fix).
There will be copy-to information, and we'll use that together with
copyfrom to figure out whether a node A was moved to B within the delta
between two arbitrary revisions. This approach is like issue #3630.
See this IRC discussion for information on my use of "move" vs. "true
rename" and how all this relates to issues #898 and #3630/#3631:
> We probably don't want to add a "Copied From Path" line: it's neither as
> interesting nor as easy. A copy doesn't need to commit two paths in one, and
> last time I checked we didn't store local paths for copied-from.
> BTW, do we have any ambition to provide 'svn mv' using a URL source? :)
No. Move information is only valid within the working copy.
Received on 2011-08-12 23:05:10 CEST