On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 07:09, Philip Martin <philip.mar...@wandisco.com> wrote: > Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Excluded in the wc is just that. It does not mean "delete upon commit." We >> have other statii to mean that. > > In 1.6 when we copy a tree containing deleted=true we mark the copied > node so that it gets deleted upon commit. Are we going to change > that?
That's my suggestion, yes. I believe that behavior is a bug. Consider that you have d...@10 and DIR/a...@11 is not-present. If you copy d...@10 to OTHER, then you should get DIR/a...@10 along with it. We don't have the data on the client, so we just mark that node excluded. Hmm. But I guess the operation is "set up the local wc so that, when I commit, it will look like DIR." Mixed-rev and all. And any local ops in DIR would carry over, too. Okay. So I guess we continue to mark that as sched-delete. > If we mark the node excluded do we use some additional mark to > indicate delete? To delete a node, it needs to be present in the working copy. ie. depth=empty. But never mind this particular scenario. >... Now back to the prior messages... Cheers, -g
