>>Am I right that this is "only" an implementation problem,
>>but no logical problem (from the user's perspective)?
>
>
> No, I would argue the other way around. The previous "rabbinic
> commentary" explains why we probably won't ever allow transitive copy
> operations.
This is what I don't understand why.
I don't see a logical reason for this
(except implementation problems; I don't know anything
about subversion implementation details.)
> But I believe that someday we *can* allow transitive move
> operations. The only reason the move scenario doesn't work right now is
> because move is currently implemented as a copy; someday, when we have
> "real" move operations in the working-copy, there should be no problem
> with transitivity.
Currently I would say that the natural solution is
to allow transitive copy operations,
and so transitive moves are automatically possibly, too.
I think it is fine that a move is implemented as copy/delete,
and I wouldn't change this.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 26 19:22:05 2003