On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 01:08:28PM +1300, Talden wrote:
>> Was there a reason that 'svn relocate' was designed to not just switch
>> the containing working copy when you're in a sub-folder of it?
>
> See http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2011-10/0134.shtml
That seems a different question. It's asking why they can no longer
switch just part of the working copy and it's related to the same
reason you can't copy part of a working tree and still use that as a
working-tree. The control directories have all been centralised at
the top of the tree and no 'detach' feature has been provided.
Partial relocation would effectively be detachment without actually
moving the content.
We don't need that (clearly I'm asking for the opposite of that). All
server interactions (update, blame, checkout, list, log, commit
(though that's redundant in this discussion), ...) are dramatically
faster against our mirror (our master repository is located in another
hemisphere in a deep dungeon at the far end of a communications system
Mr A G Bell would have been embarrassed by - but then the performance
is about normal for people used to accessing overseas resources from
New Zealand). Switching between mirror and master is a highly useful
and regularly operation.
Since 'relocate' is a new command, does not allow for detaching a
sub-folder in the working-tree and likely will not be used for that in
the future, why doesn't it just switch the entire working copy if
you're currently in one (especially when you're nested 10-15 folders
deep) and don't specify a path?
Obviously versions < 1.7 required you to specify the root too (ala svn
switch --relocate) but hey, this is a new command. What gives.
I'm a bit annoyed at myself actually. I've been ill on and off for
some months and really should have looked into this as soon as useful
binaries were being made available (thank-you TortoiseSvn for all of
those handy pre-beta builds I played with). Unfortunately, and
totally by accident, the testing I did do had me switching while at
the WC root.
Still I am curious that effort was made to put an informative error
message in when it seems it could have been avoided (or used only when
paths were supplied that weren't WC roots - though would it have hurt
to just switch their roots too).
--
Talden
Received on 2011-10-14 04:20:42 CEST