On 04/07/2011 08:44 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > I'm not really sure how a copied switch should behave when committed, is > the above correct?
This use-case doesn't even make sense to me. Switch is a working copy operation concept -- causing local elements to reflect an alternate line of history. Forgetting the copy operation for a second, if you simply commit in a working copy that has a switched subdir, there's no "coalescing" of the tree on the server side -- changes made in the subdir wind up in the repos tree to which the subdir is switched, and changes made outside the subdir wind up in their respective original repos locations. Now we add 'copy' to this situation -- a copy of a tree with a switched subdir. I rather think that this should behave as if it was a BASE deep copy with the switches re-applied after the copy. In other words, when looking at the copy result, switch followed by copy should have the same effect as copy followed by switch, or something like that. This also implies that, for user sanity, we should disallow WC-to-REPOS copies of trees containing switched items. -- C. Michael Pilato <cmpil...@collab.net> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
