Johan Corveleyn <jcorvel_at_gmail.com> писал(а) в своём письме Thu, 18 May
2017 16:05:49 +0300:
> On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 2:03 PM, Andrey <andry_at_inbox.ru> wrote:
>>>> As you see the file1.txt is missed in second status output as
>>>> unversioned and so can be missed from add before a commit.
>>>
>>> It's not unversioned, it's in the "deleted" state. You can't have both,
>>> since you can revert the deletion.
>>
>> If i'll revert it then i'll LOSE CHANGES because the svn will remove
>> another file w/o warning in this case. Just because it had the same
>> name.
>>
>> However, I don't want to revert anything, i am talking about possibility
>> of forget to add files because they are obscured by the deletion state
>> in
>> the status.
>
> Hm. If you 'svn add file1.txt' (the new file that's being hidden by
> the delete), then I guess it's visible as a "replace" (R), right?
>
> So for an uncommitted delete and add at the same path we have a
> special status, R. But for an uncommitted delete + unversioned at the
> same path we don't. I suppose in theory we could also show a special
> status for that (like R, but then for an "unversioned replacement").
> It's a special case, but doesn't sound all that far fetched.
>
> I guess you're counting on the "unversioned detection" for instance to
> get the help of TortoiseSVN for not forgetting unversioned files (in
> the commit dialog it shows unversioned files and has checkboxes to add
> them directly from within that dialog).
>
Yes. That will be good enough. And, by the way, the TortoiseSVN counting
on the SVN too. :)
Received on 2017-05-18 15:41:22 CEST