On Apr 25, 2005, at 3:56 AM, Patrick Heinemann wrote:
> Dear Ingo, dear Ben,
>
> thanks for your replies!
>
> It seems that there was no way for me to prevent the problem from
> happening
> apart from keepin my whole team from working on the sources.
Read issue #2282 for a full explanation of the issue.
> As we just
> migrated from CVS to subversion this is a very hard lesson to learn as
> these
> kind of restructurization mechanisms where one of the reasons why I
> decided
> to switch to subversion. I think I will have a hard time explaining the
> problem to the sceptics in my team, that constantly claim that
> subversion is
> still not in a stable state (comparable to CVS)...
Because it's more "stable" to have an administrator rearrange RCS files
in a CVS repository? :-)
>
> But I am pleased that there are efforts to overcome this and to
> implement a
> real "move". Until this is done, I want to ask you again, if you think
> that
> using a branch/merge mechanism would have reduced the work I had to do
> after
> the conflict arose?
I don't see how branching and merging would anything better or worse,
maybe you can explain.
What you need to do is teach your users to notice when 'svn update'
receives a deletion ('D') which converts an edited, versioned file into
an unversioned file. That means using 'svn status' quite often,
noticing unversioned files in the listing, and keeping tabs on the
changeset in progress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Apr 25 14:24:12 2005