On Tue, Mar 1, 2022 at 10:34 AM Julian Foad <julianf...@apache.org> wrote: > > On Feb 18 2022, Mark Phippard wrote: > >> [It fetches and stores pristines of modified files;] it doesn't mean > >> "store no pristines" in that WC. > > > > I am curious what Karl thinks given that he is living this scenario > > today and wants the feature. I would think that having update create > > pristines for any modified file taints its usefulness. That said, it > > is probably still better than what they have today and if the user is > > on a fast network and disk space is not too big of an issue it might > > not matter too much. I personally think this is the biggest issue to > > solve though, more so than selectively choosing pristines for > > different files. I think the feature just really does not "work as > > advertised" if it is going to behave this way. > > Hello, Mark. Maybe Karl will yet answer, but I didn't want to leave this > hanging any longer. > > This design was anticipated as far back as a 2006-06-09 comment on #525 > by Oswald Buddenhagen [1], where it is described as one of the > possibilities among variations and alternatives. I'm not saying that > justifies choosing it as the best solution, just that it's not arriving > now from off the radar.
That comment specifically talks about diff. I think it is entirely reasonable that for diff the feature works the way it does (fetch and keep the pristine). For an update, I think it is unexpected and undesirable. At least if the HEAD revision of the file on the server is still the same as what I had in my WC. > We've already discussed how there are certainly scenarios where it won't > be greatly helpful as well as scenarios where it will, and several > people seem to think there are enough of the latter. > > Maybe, don't knock it till you've tried it? I am really not knocking the overall feature. I am just saying that in the scenario I described there is no way I would expect svn up to fetch the pristines for files just because I have local mods. I think for users with really large files ... which I assume are the main target user ... it will make the feature less useful than it would be if this behavior did not exist. I am not this user. I am just projecting what I think they would want. I was hoping Karl might chime in and/or interview his users about what they might think. I personally think finding a solution to this would be valuable. Mark
