In my opinion, the real intent here when we do multiple copies should be
that B is a descendant of A, and C is a descendant of B. I would expect
svn log --verbose to tell me that.
Thank you,
François
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 13:10:52 -0600, "Ben Collins-Sussman"
<sussman@collab.net> said:
> You're right -- the problem here is implementation. I suppose we
> *could* simply not care about the inconsistent ancestor problem, and
> implement transitivity anyway. In other words, 'svn cp A B' would make
> a special check -- if A is schedule-add-with-history, then make B use
> the same ancestor-URL. That means that there would be absolutely no
> difference between
>
> svn cp A B
> svn cp A C
> svn commit
>
> and
>
> svn cp A B
> svn cp B C
> svn commit
>
> In both cases, B and C will claim to be direct descendants of A. Is
> that really okay? In the second scenario, is it really okay that B and
> C are siblings, rather than ancestor/descendant relationship? Doesn't
> that bother you?
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Dec 26 20:26:50 2003