> > 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).
>
> My assumption is that since in 1.6 you WERE able to switch a non-root folder
> to another path and in 1.7 it automatically fell back to switching the root the
> user would expect that the folder only was switched and have issues later
> on. So, in 1.7 it tells you if you are switching a non-root path that you can't do
> that and switch the root path. Make sense?
>
> BOb
Everywhere I wrote switch above you can also read as RELOCATE.
BOb
Received on 2011-10-17 17:21:22 CEST