Re: 'svn mv' between disjoint wc's of disjoint subtrees

On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Branko Čibej <brane_at_wandisco.com> wrote:
> On 08.01.2013 11:24, Johan Corveleyn wrote:
>> (all as disjoint working copies, the sparse working copy feature
>> is/was a bit too obscure for me, so I didn't know about that. I just
>> checked out one after the other the things I need).
>
> This is actually an argument for my point of view. :)
>
> Subversion provides a feature that solves all the cases you mentioned,

No it doesn't. See Bert's earlier response in this thread [1].

> including refactoring between different projects, yet you don't use it
> because it's "too obscure".

Well, like it or not, but sparse working copies are still a kind of
power-user feature.

Besides, often the user / IDE does not know in advance that they will
end up with multiple projects/modules/wc's. They start with one simple
module, and it grows from there. Little do they know in advance that
they should have checked out the parent (with depth=empty) and should
have built a sparse WC from there.

> Instead you expect another feature to be
> delayed because we currently do not know how to transactionally modify
> several working-copy databases at the same time.

No I don't. I'm okay with having a graceful fallback to a non-tracking
move, without breaking what worked in 1.7. I first thought this would
be broken, but it seems not (see [2]).

> Why not make the effort to make sparse working copies less obscure instead?

I'm doing that in my organisation. But I don't have the time right now
to do something for that in general for the project. I'm just trying
to point out that we shouldn't break something that works right now.

[1] http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-01/0176.shtml
[2] http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-01/0167.shtml

-- 
Johan