On 24.08.2013 13:51, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2013, at 02:48, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 24.08.2013 03:44, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Aug 23, 2013, at 13:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>> I think it is the problem we've been discussing. Leaving them means
>>>> you have to keep the containing directory, which becomes unversioned
>>>> as you switch away from the branch having it,
>>>> and then a conflict when
>>>> you switch back.
>>> *This* is the problem we're discussing. *This* is what Subversion should be smart enough to avoid. None of the discussion I've read thus far gives me a convincing explanation for why this should not be possible.
>> You're assuming it is correct, in all cases, to silently make a
>> directory versioned because the incoming directory happens to have the
>> same name. It is not. It may be marginally correct in your case,
>> however, Subversion has no way of knowing that the unversioned directory
>> it sees is in any way related to whatever is on the switched branch. It
>> needs user input; it cannot magically become "smart enough".
> If, as you said below, this shouldn't happen generally, then one way to make Subversion smart enough would be to have it remember when it converted a directory from versioned to unversioned due to a switch, so that it can then seamlessly transform it back if the user switches back.
Because a) that would mean the working copy would have to remember /all/
opereations that ever happend in its history, and b) it wouldn't work
anyway because even if we did a), there's still no way for the working
copy to know what happened outside of Subversion. And you're ignoring
the update case, which breaks your solution.
We surely have better things to do than invest man-years of time into
fixing a problem that goes away if you actually take the time to read
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
Received on 2013-08-24 14:54:44 CEST