On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:42:11PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Stefan Sperling <stsp_at_elego.de> wrote:
> >> >> For directories it seems like a no-brainer to avoid the conflict.
> >> >
> >> > Indeed, adding a resolver option for this should not be very difficult.
> >>
> >> I'd opt for not having a conflict in the first place.
> >
> > There is a reason the non-conflict behaviour requires the --force option.
> > It is perfectly fine for Subversion to be conservative if the alternative
> > is to litter all over other people's data.
> >
> > And this conflict is not very difficult to solve:
> >
> > When a directory DIR has an "local dir unversioned, incoming dir add upon
> > update" conflict, and you want to keep DIR as it was and do not want SVN
> > to touch it after all, all you need to do is move DIR out of the working
> > copy (with standard operating system tools) to somewhere else and it will
> > have been preserved as it was before SVN got involved.
> > Then run 'svn revert -R DIR' to put the versioned content in place.
> > Note that this solution is not trivial to achieve after update --force
> > which might modify unversioned files, requiring the user to edit files
> > in DIR back into their original state. This is why --force is not the default.
>
> Are you sure?
> In my experience --force does NOT overwrite existing files.
> Not overwriting files is safe and exactly what I want.
I am quite sure:
$ cd trunk-wc
$ ls
alpha beta epsilon/ gamma/
$ cat epsilon/zeta
zeta
$ cd ..
$ rm -rf trunk-wc
$ mkdir -p trunk-wc/epsilon
$ echo zzz > trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta
$ svn co --force file:///tmp/svn-sandbox/repos/trunk trunk-wc
A trunk-wc/alpha
A trunk-wc/beta
E trunk-wc/epsilon
E trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta
A trunk-wc/gamma
A trunk-wc/gamma/delta
Checked out revision 2.
$ svn diff trunk-wc
Index: trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta
===================================================================
--- trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta (revision 2)
+++ trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta (working copy)
@@ -1 +1 @@
-zeta
+zzz
> > and forgot to use --force.
>
> I wasn't aware of --force before asking this question.
It's not asking any questions.
> --force is usually used for dangerous stuff as well.
--force is a historcal name everyone is rather unhappy with.
No option named --force should exist (what is being forced?). But it does,
so now we cannot remove it without breaking backwards compatibility.
Received on 2016-12-03 22:07:44 CET