On 24.08.2013 21:26, Travis Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 09:04:48PM +0200, Stefan Sperling claimed:
>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:22:41AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Don't forget that it was subversion, not the user, that created the
>>> directory and abandoned it in the first place.
>> If a previously versioned directory is left behind unversioned, that
>> means there are unversioned (aka obstructing) nodes within the
>> directory, such as files created during a build. Those files could
>> not have been created by svn.
>> I hope that we will eventually extend tree conflict handling to the
>> point where it makes these kinds of situations trivial to resolve,
>> even for novice users. svn should interactively offer a set of
>> reasonable courses of action, such as removing the unversioned nodes,
>> or moving them to a special lost+found area, or something else that
>> allows incoming versioned nodes to be created in their place.
> That's just overcomplicating the issue. This doesn't even need to
> become a tree conflict. There seems to be confusion about what is
> actually needed to solve the OP's original problem and to make svn
> switch symmetric. I've attached a simple patch which solves the issue in
> the method that I proposed.
I already explained at length why this solution is absolutely the wrong
approach. It solves a small subset of cases at the cost of causing
serious grief to users in the majority of cases. Let's please just stop
discussing this approach because it is not viable.
Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion
WANdisco // Non-Stop Data
Received on 2013-08-24 22:05:30 CEST