On 12/6/05, Matt Doran <matt.doran@papercut.biz> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know the best way to recover your WC after the switch fails half
> way though (like I've encountered below)?
>
> Toby Johnson ... also asked a similar question and hasn't been answered:
> http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2005-12/0165.shtml
Matt,
Could you log this in the issue tracker as a DEFECT for the libsvn_wc
subcomponent? Thanks!
bye,
Erik.
> Matt Doran wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been using svn daily for over a year ... but only been working with
> branches more recently. Today I encountered a problem switching from a
> feature branch back to trunk. The branch added a new subproject with it's
> own build output (that was svn:ignore'd). After committing my work I tried
> to 'switch' back to trunk that's when the trouble started. Although I
> originally encountered this using the latest TSVN release, I have been able
> to reproduce it using svn 1.2.3 on Debian (repro recipe attached).
>
> The switch fails with the unfriendly message:
> svn: Won't delete locally modified directory '.'
> svn: Left locally modified or unversioned files
>
> That really confused me. For one the '.' indicated that the current
> directory was the modified (when it wasn't), but in fact the problem was
> deeper down. Not knowing what the problem was I tried a number of things
> to fix (try switching again, try switching back, revert, update, cleanup,
> etc) .... nothing worked. And the errors got worse ...
>
> svn: Working copy '<foldername>' is missing or not locked
>
> I eventually figured out that the problem was due to some unversioned and
> ignored files in the new subproject on the branch. And I don't remember how
> I fix the WC .... but it wasn't obvious.
>
> I've attached a recipe that reproduces this problem (and my unhelpful
> attempts to clean things up). I've also attached the output of the script.
>
> Could someone explain how I could avoid this situation in the future.... and
> resolve it if it happens again?
>
> Should this be raised as an issue? In the very least the initial error that
> is displayed could be improved to make it clearer what went wrong, and how
> to fix.....
>
> Cheers,
> Matt
>
Received on Tue Dec 6 13:11:05 2005