Hi, Philip,
> Von: Philip Martin [mailto:[email protected]]
> "Markus Schaber" <[email protected]> writes:
> 1.7 changes the behaviour so that depth more accurately describes the
> nodes to be affected; issue 3851 describes some corner cases in 1.7.
OK, I see. So maybe some of the workaround code I just invented can be
removed once we update to 1.7.
> > So my question now is: In what direction is the development headed
in
> > this area?
>
> It's not really headed anywhere. 1.7 fixes some of the depth
> inconsistencies in 1.6 and uses the centralised metadata to make more
> cases work.
It's a pity that 1.7 will be to late for our first release.
> > Will there be a different set of operations ("revert the directory
> > (files, properties) to the original state" vs. "revert the scheduled
> > addition")?
>
> Sounds like a reasonable enhancement.
> > And will there be an option which allows the deletion of the
orphaned
> > files, if a scheduled-for-addition directory tree is reverted?
>
> For copied nodes at least.
Maybe "--remove-orphaned-nodes" removes all copied, non-modified files,
and
"--force" in addition removes also non-copied and modified files?
Regards,
Markus
