Re: Updating local-moves

Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> writes:

> I think the update should ask, "apply edits to A/f to your moved B/f?".

If the user says "no" then I think we would have to break the move and
convert it into a copy + delete. If the user copies A/f_at_3 to B/f and
then updates A/f to r4, it doesn't make sense for B/f to remain a move.

Note that the destination isn't always a working file. Consider a
working copy with 3 files A/Y/f, B/Y/f, C/Y/f. Move A to X, delete X/Y,
move B/Y to X/Y, delete X/Y/f, move C/Y/f to X/Y/f:

op-depth local-relpath presence moved-to moved-here
    0 A normal
    0 A/Y normal
    0 A/Y/f normal
    1 A deleted X
    1 A/Y deleted
    1 A/Y/f deleted
    0 B normal
    0 B/Y normal
    0 B/Y/f normal
    2 B/Y deleted X/Y
    2 B/Y/f deleted
    0 C normal
    0 C/Y normal
    0 C/Y/f normal
    3 C/Y/f deleted X/Y/f
    1 X normal 1
    1 X/Y normal 1
    1 X/Y/f normal 1
    2 X/Y normal 1
    2 X/Y/f normal 1
    3 X/Y/f normal 1

So the file X/Y/f exists at op-depth 1, 2 and 3. An update that changes
B/Y/f needs to update the row X/Y/f at op-depth 2 although no change is
made to the working file.

-- 
uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy
http://www.uberSVN.com