Brummer, Byron wrote:
> I'd also like to note the resurrection of an object neither
> changes it nor "initializes" it. Following your logic then
> the resurrection of an object should not show up in the
> object's history either, yet it does.
The resurrection of an object shows up precisely for the same reason
that every other copy and move shows up, which I've already admitted was
a deviation from the original implementation.
> It was a design flaw to allow a delete and add of the same
> path within the context of a single revision. But what is
> done is done, c'est la vie.
This is a matter of opinion, and one which I suspect is far outweighed
by the many Subversion users who count on this functionality being
present like myself. Not two weeks ago, I needed this behavior in order
to replace a section of the Subversion book's trunk tree with the
corresponding tree location that had been under development in a feature
branch. Requiring delete && commit && add && commit leaves a revision
with a missing path, and for things like continuous build systems,
missing paths are flatly unacceptable.
It's a bummer that this flexibility comes with the cost you're so
determined to illuminate. But, as you said, c'est la vie.
~ ~ ~
We could continue in this fashion forever, quite frankly to the benefit
of no one. For myself, I'll be doing my part to keep the noise level on
this list down by bailing on this conversation.
C. Michael Pilato <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Thu Jan 11 03:30:12 2007