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

Re: "svn update" fails to remove folder that still contains ignored files

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell_at_gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:45:29 -0600

Jan Hendrik wrote:
> Concerning Re: "svn update" fails to remove fo
> Ryan Schmidt wrote on 20 Nov 2009, 17:06, at least in part:
>
>> On Nov 20, 2009, at 15:01, Jan Hendrik wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> Shows how different understanding can be. Mine was that in the
> first place the OP suggested a switch to svn rm to get the whole
> folder out of his hair at once. But you're right, it's "update" in the
> subject. The suggested switch:
>
>>> --dont-preserve-ignored : do not preserve ignored files when
>>> (re)moving folders
> ^^^^^^^^^^
>
> had mislead me.
>
> Anyway, my objection stands. No one in his mind would use such
> a switch except when being 200% sure one has no ignored files
> anywhere. For on update one will never know for certain what
> exactly happens (except if one scrutinizes the logs first and then
> updates to revX, never HEAD).
>
> A switch to svn remove would make true sense only if a flag
> (property) is added to remove the folder on updates of any other
> working copies no matter what ignored/unversioned files are in it.

Can't you already get this effect, if you want it, by making sure you have
committed all your modified files, deleting your working copy, and checking it
out again? Seems kind of drastic, but so does asking update to remove something
not under subversion's control.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell_at_gmail.com
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=1065&dsMessageId=2422838
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 18:46:22 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.