[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: Delete revision of an object has no peg revision?

From: Jeff Smith <jsmith_at_robotronics.com>
Date: 2007-01-11 21:40:00 CET

On Thursday 11 January 2007 03:00, Brummer, Byron wrote:
>     Again, show me a sane way to retrieve an object's complete
>     history and I'll drop the subject.

This thread seems to be all around defining terms. Byron, I've been
following what you've been saying and it makes sense (aside from some
definition details), but I think I'm beginning understand a different
way for you to think of the "history of an object".

If I understand what all you've said (I can't seem to remember all of
the thread and who said what), I am seeing that the root of the
problem is in this last statement, wanting "a sane way to retrieve an
object's complete history".

I think the major problem lyes in what exactly is an object. When
copying "/trunk/prj1/" to "/tags/prj1_1/", is the new one the same
object? Of course not. If an object gets moved from "/trunk/" to
"/trunk/prj2/", is the latter the same object as the first? No.

The hard question along the same lines is, if "fname" is deleted, and
later "fname" is added, is it the same object as the one that has
been deleted? Well, sensibly no. We are merely "adding" a file with
coppied contents, NOT undeleting the old object. Sorry if I'm just
repeating something already said, but it's worth repeating. So
getting the complete history of one object can only be the first
"fname", or the second "fname", and not a continuation of both even
though they had the same path.

Yes that makes it complicated to handle in svn, because it is
confusing that they are even meant to be the same thing. The only
solution I see would be to add the actual "undelete" function, but I
don't think it's worth it.

On the other hand, I wouldn't mind if someone did write a script that
draws a map to show the kind of history that you want. I'm not
experienced enough to know but I think it would just continue
backwards with the object that the current object was coppied from
and maybe that is already in existance.

I did notice that you will link the resurrected object better if you
make a copy using svn URLs because then you will actually sho in the
history that this object was coppied from the actual object that was
deleted. I am thankful for this thread because it helped me realize
how important that could be.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 11 23:16:38 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Users mailing list.