On Nov 4, 2005, at 09:04, Robert Swarbrick wrote:
> They are different in Subversion because the first operation
> retains the
> history of the moved file, whereas the second adds a new file with no
> history.
>
> So in the first case, if there's been four years of development on the
> moved file, with comments relating bug-fixes to other records (e.g.
> bug
> id's) or giving explanations as to why a particular code change
> happened, developers can still read all of this by running "svn
> log" on
> the moved file.
> In 3 months time, you don't have to manually remember that this
> file was
> copied and where from, as Subversion will log the move.
> History also helps merging determine what should and should not be
> merged when you update information between branches.
> This is often important (it certainly is for the project I currently
> work on)
>
> In the second case, it's a brand new file as far as Subversion is
> concerned. If you're just setting up a new component of a project, or
> for some other reason are unconcerned about Subversion's history of
> the
> file, then this operation may be for you.
>
> See the Subversion book for why history is important, e.g. Ch 3
> "Examining History"
Yes, but a user might still reasonably expect svn rm file; svn mv
file2 file; svn commit to just work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Nov 4 14:19:58 2005