On 12/5/05, Ingo Adler <email@example.com> wrote:
> Erik Huelsmann wrote:
> >Oops. "It's a bug. It should be solved as fast as possible. " is the
> >exact quote, but it was Ingo Adler who said it. Sorry for taking that
> >out on you.
> And I mean it as long as you claim "Subversion is meant to be a better
> CVS". (Check CVSNT for instance.)
Well, maybe we aren't better than CVS for you then. But for most
projects switching was definitely a step forward.
> I like Subversion and I appreciate your work. But I have real life
> problems with this bug which I didn't have with CVS. Think about
> refactoring, branching and merging.
> Keeping the history after a rename operation is not as important as not
> loosing changes in moved files - for me and my developers.
I didn't say you have no problems. We just tell you that it's intended
behaviour atm (and thus not a bug, which is non-intended or plain
> I've had some discussions about that with Ben Colins-Sussmann last time
> in thread "Questions on moving files and directories". He confirms that
> it is a bug. Read #2282. It's about conflicts - not true renames.
#2282 is an ENHANCEMENT ie not a bug (DEFECT).
> I didn't mean to offend you or your colleagues.
If you want anything to be done on this front you could lead the
discussion (in dev@) about tree conflicts and how subversion should
handle them. If we reach consensus, someone (maybe you, maybe someone
else) can implement the defined behaviours.
Received on Mon Dec 5 21:37:11 2005