On Oct 19, 10:29 am, Dave Huang <k..._at_azeotrope.org> wrote:
> On Oct 19, 2011, at 12:02 PM, spongman wrote:
>
> > On Oct 17, 11:35 pm, Wayne Johnson <wa..._at_zk.com> wrote:
> >> it's
> >> obvious from at least spongman's comments that there are some real
> >> misunderstandings of the what how subversion works, fundamental
> >> misunderstandings.
>
> > I'm pretty sure I understand quite well how subversion works. Could
> > you point to which comments lead you to believe otherwise?
>
> ----------------------------------------http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMess...
>
> On Oct 14, 12:49 pm, Dave Huang <k..._at_azeotrope.org> wrote:
>
> > I think the distinction between a working copy and a repository is still clear.
>
> I'm sure you do.
>
> However, for myself and several others who have taken the time to
> bring it up, it is definitely not clear.
> ----------------------------------------http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMess...
>
> > However, when you're doing a merge
> > there are two repositories involved (the repository you're merging,
> > and the repository associated with the working copy)
>
> ----------------------------------------
>
> Earlier you admit that the distinction between a working copy and a repository isn't clear to you. You later clarify that you understand that there's only one repository involved, but that since a working copy is associated with a repository, both can be referred to as a "repository". Your insistence on tying a WC to a repo in the context of a merge operation makes it sound like you don't quite get that the merge destination is the WC, and the repo that's associated with the WC isn't involved at all until you commit (which is not part of the merge).
>
> Recall that we're talking about the conflict dialog that appears *when you do a merge*. Since the subject is merging, it doesn't really make sense to think about the repo that's associated with the WC that you're merging into.
>
> --
> Name: Dave Huang | Mammal, mammal / their names are called /
> INet: k..._at_azeotrope.org | they raise a paw / the bat, the cat /
> FurryMUCK: Dahan | dolphin and dog / koala bear and hog -- TMBG
> Dahan: Hani G Y+C 35 Y++ L+++ W- C++ T++ A+ E+ S++ V++ F- Q+++ P+ B+ PA+ PL++
>
> ------------------------------------------------------http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMess...
>
> To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscr..._at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Yes, the distinction isn't clear to me in the context of that dialog.
This is what I have been saying all along, and is the reason for me
starting this thread in the first place. When I said "two
repositories", I'm sorry I wasn't clear, I meant to say "two
different, ambiguous references to the same repository" (I replaced
the references with the referenced). The fact that the two refer to
the same repository does not help to resolve the ambiguity.
I am aware that the target of the merge is the working copy. I'm aware
that the merge itself does not write anything to the repository. But
that does not change the fact that the working copy is, nevertheless,
associated with a repository. It's associated with it before the
merge, it's associated with it during the merge, and it's associate
with it after the merge. Just because the repository isn't touched
during the merge, doesn't mean that association goes away. However,
what you seem to be saying above, is that in order to make sense of
the dialog, the user must somehow magically remember to temporarily
forget about this association.
------------------------------------------------------
http://tortoisesvn.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=4061&dsMessageId=2858898
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [users-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2011-10-19 20:11:07 CEST