On Nov 20, 2009, at 15:01, Jan Hendrik wrote:
> Concerning Re: "svn update" fails to remove fo
> Markus Kuhn wrote on 20 Nov 2009, 15:10, at least in part:
>
>> Daniel Shahaf wrote on 2009-11-20 14:06 UTC:
>>
>>>> Shouldn't svn update be at liberty to destroy any ignored files
>>>> located in a folder that it is about to remove?
>>>
>>> We could add a switch to do that, perhaps.
>>
>> I would find such a switch very useful! It would help me to avoid a
>> lot of manual cleanup of folders that should have vanished on their
>> own.
>>
>> How about:
>>
>> --dont-preserve-ignored : do not preserve ignored files when
>> (re)moving folders
>
> I should say this is a very dangerous approach. While you may be
> certain that none of the possibly ignored files (how about ignored
> subfolders?) in a folder of your working copy you are about to
> remove is of any value for you, another developer may have ignored
> files of value for him which such a switch would remove on update
> just the same, without his knowledge or even consent.
>
> I can see the upside for e.g. editor-generated backup files, but I
> also use ignore patterns for script drafts, ideas files, one-time
> copies of versioned scripts customized for specific tasks etc. etc.
>
> I wouldn't want any other person with commit rights to tamper with
> these.
I think the suggestion was to add a switch to "svn update"; thus, the person doing the update is in control of whether files in their working copy will disappear or not. If you don't want this behavior, you wouldn't use this switch on your working copy.
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2422614
Please start new threads on the <users_at_subversion.apache.org> mailing list.
To subscribe to the new list, send an empty e-mail to <users-subscribe_at_subversion.apache.org>.
Received on 2009-11-21 00:07:18 CET