C. Michael Pilato wrote:
> Julian Foad wrote:
>> Did you mean to imply that use of the phrase "true renames" should be
>> limited to this storage layer? That's not the impression I have.
>
> I'm not trying to say that the term has no meaning outside of discussions
> related to the storage layer. Just that:
>
> - any conversation about supporting the "true rename" idea in Subversion
> thoroughly hinges on fundamentally different treatment of renamed
> objects in that filesystem layer, and
>
> - the only place we've ever attempted to implement true renames is in
> that filesystem layer.
>
> - it remains to be demonstrated that "true renames" are required for
> Subversion to work as users expect. I am fully convinced that if
> Subversion would properly handle what it offers today (deletes, copies,
> and their conjugation under the rename umbrella) we wouldn't be
> having any conversations about "true renames" at all. Nobody really
> cares how we model our renames as long as common stuff like updates
> and merges just work.
And:
- before you start telling business users that Subversion needs to
support true renames before it can meet their needs, prove it.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
