RE: Directory Modification Feature or a Bug?

Thanks for the reply.

Well I searched through the information that you suggested, but I still
don't see an answer.

Also saying the automatic update after commit of a modified directory (only
the directory without recursion) is a Bad Thing does not make much sense.
If it is a Bad Thing, than why would I be able to do it manually, and in
fact be required to do it manually in order to get my simple example to
work?

All I am saying is that the commit command should do the update after the
commit, and if there are exceptional circumstances when you would not want
it, perhaps that could be disabled using a switch.

Maybe an example of why this is a Bad Thing to do it automatically, but not
a Bad Thing when doing it manually would be good.

-J

-----Original Message-----
From: rooneg@gmail.com [mailto:rooneg@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Garrett Rooney
Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2006 12:14 AM
To: Jiri Culik
Cc: users@subversion.tigris.org
Subject: Re: Directory Modification Feature or a Bug?

On 3/15/06, Jiri Culik <gculik@gmail.com> wrote:

> Now if I add "svn update" after the second commit everything works fine. I
> understand why this is happening, since the commit does not seem to update
> the directory in the local workspace. My question is, why doesn't the
commit
> (after modification of the contents of a directory) automatically update
the
> modified directory in the first place? Is this by design and if so why, or
> is this a bug?

See http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#wc-out-of-date

There you will find pointers to other, more in depth descriptions of
the reasons behind this behavior.

The short version is that it's supposed to work that way because
automatically updating on commit would be a Bad Thing (tm).

-garrett

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Mar 16 15:53:52 2006