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

Re: Switching

From: Travis Brown <travisb_at_travisbrown.ca>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 14:49:07 -0700

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:16:49PM -0500, Les Mikesell claimed:
<snip>
>The contents of the file are irrelevant. The point is that it has to
>either be versioned so svn can delete it knowing that you can get it
>back, and then delete the containing directory that is really the
>issue, or you have to delete it yourself. Pick one. If it really is
<snip>

Why must svn delete the directory in order to create it?

Reading this thread it seems to me that the core of the issue is that svn
switch is not symmetrical when dealing with directories. When switching
away from a branch with an extra directory which contains unversioned
files, svn leaves the directory. However, when switching back to the
branch with the extra directory it requires that no such directory
already exist, even if none of the incoming files have conflicting
unversioned twins.

Why can svn not, instead, simply interpret an already existing directory
as not a conflict? Certainly if a versioned file would overwrite an
unversioned file of the same name then that is a true conflict because
the content may differ. A directory has nicely compartmentalized units
of content which can be handled in a smarter way.

>
>--
> Les Mikesell
> lesmikesell_at_gmail.com

-- 
Travis

  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on 2013-08-22 23:50:05 CEST

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