Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 06:13:22 +0100:
> On 08.11.2012 05:26, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Branko Čibej wrote on Thu, Nov 08, 2012 at 04:13:52 +0100:
> >> I believe that the correct approach would be to always treat a changed
> >> node kind (that's either the appearance/disappearance of the svn:symlink
> >> property, or a change of the initial keyword in the special-file
> >> contents) as if it were a replacement, for the purpose of conflict
> >> detection and resolution, even though the node didn't actually get
> >> replaced.
> > Should we allow nodes to change their special-ness (namely: whether
> > they have svn:special set, and if yes what's the initial keyword)
> > without a replace?
> > i.e., sure, current clients can do that --- "svn ps svn:special yes
> > COMMITTERS" --- so we'll have to handle that in libsvn_wc. But maybe we
> > shouldn't allow any more instances of that.
> Good point. It might be a good idea to simply forbid setting or deleting
> svn:special explicitly, and also refusing to commit the file if its
> contents were modified in a way that changes the special type.
> Effectively that means you could only create special files through
> indirect means, e.g., by "svn add"ing a symlink.
> That wouldn't remove the work needed to fix the tree conflict bug, but
> it would make the svn:special semantics clearer. I personally don't
> think we have to worry about backward compatibility at that level; I'd
> rather treat the fact that you can directly manipulate svn:special as a bug.
I would agree that being able to add/rm svn:special on a file node _that
already exists in the repository_ is a bug. But being able to do that
on a locally-added file is a feature --- it's what allows Windows users
to create versioned symlinks:
printf "link bar" > foo && svn add foo && svn ps svn:special yes foo && svn ci
If we don't like changing the specialness of a local addition, we could
deprecate (or break) that behaviour and have people run
'svn add --with-revprop svn:special=yes foo' instead.
(Note to jcorvel, I don't think 'svn add' takes that option yet. :) )
> -- Brane
Received on 2012-11-08 08:07:47 CET