Frodak Baksik wrote:
>> Do you disagree that an object should exist at all points in time
>> between creation and destruction? Subversion maintains a timeline of
>> the history of a file. There should not be holes in a timeline.
>
> No, I don't disagree with that. But we apparently have different
> views on when an object is created.
Initially I based on my view on when it was created on the output of svn
log, which shows the history back to r1. I assumed from this history
that the object did exist in r1.
> I see a copy as creating a new object (as opposed to a move that,
> well, moves an already existing object), perhaps that is the wrong
> view to have with Subversion. Perhaps someone on the dev team could
> shed some insight?
Since a move in svn is just a copy+delete, renaming should have the same
effect. I just checked this by renaming the trunk to branch instead of
copying and it causes the same problem.
It looks like this issue is not specific to branch/merge, but rather is
a problem any time there is an add with history, and that add is
committed in a revision other than the one immediately following the
revision that the history is taken from. This leaves a hole with no
history at all in between those two points. If there is history before,
and after, then there should be something there during that interval
showing that nothing was changed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Feb 15 23:10:09 2007