On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_apache.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 01:22:42PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> Then let's say +0. I'd like it even better if this could be handled
>> correctly with move-tracking, but I can't help in any meaningful way
>> myself with that (and I rather agree that we shouldn't postpone
>> releasing for too long, and keep nice things from our users), so I'll
>> thankfully accept any working solution you guys (anyone) can implement
>> in a reasonable timeframe :-).
> What do you hope to achieve, in terms of practical use cases, by
> tracking moves across disjoint working copies?
> Do you want to enforce that both working copies need to be committed
> together, so that the move happens as a copy+delete in a single revision?
> Or are you thinking about the case where an update or merge acts on a
> local move, and where this action conflicts? Would you expect to be
> able to resolve conflicts across disjoint working copies???
> Or anything else?
No, can't think of anything else right now. Those two
move-tracking-enabled enhancements would be nice.
But I can see that it would be really hard to do this with disjoint
working copies, and I agree that it's perfectly defensible to punt on
this now. As long as the pre-1.8 behavior keeps working in that case
(i.e. you can do it all, you just have no single-commit protection, no
conflict resolution help).
Received on 2013-01-08 13:54:20 CET