Re: svn merge on branches containing moved files/directories

On Mar 16, 2005, at 8:37 AM, Scott Palmer wrote:

>
> On Mar 16, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
>
>>
>> When merging in the other direction, the merge command silently
>> deletes the newer version of the file.
>>
>
> I had always assumed that under the hood merge (or at least half of
> it) was implemented with the same code that does update.

Nope, completely different code.

There's a huge difference: update actually changes the *foundation* of
your working copy: the text-bases, the working-revision, etc. A merge
does nothing but make local edits to your working copy: everything
that a user could do by hand -- edit working files, run 'svn add' or
'svn rm'.

> How is it that a merge is able to delete a modified file where an
> update does not?
>

Merge doesn't delete the file, it merely *schedules* a deletion, as if
it had typed 'svn rm file'. The scheduling is revertable, or, if the
user likes it, can commit, and then the deletion is "real".

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Mar 16 16:26:07 2005