On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 01:06:18AM +0200, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > > SVN was _not_ broken. > > > > Face it. > > > > In fact, you could even manage files with 'case problems' under Windows, > > and you could even _work_ with them if you really wanted. Not on NTFS or > > FAT, of course. > > Hä? I couldn't check out/in anything.
First, you need not. svn help mv. URL->URL is the interesting part, just rename one of the 'offending' files, run 'svn up' and be done. Second, you could if you wanted to. See below. > My SVN makes lots of troubles and after a checkout try I got a totally > broken tree. [Just because TortoiseSVN bails out doesn't mean you have a broken SVN tree... Anyway...] > On Windows I have of course only FAT and NTFS, in my case only NTFS. This 'of course' is a limitation imposed by yourself. There is no problem to have e.g. ext2 partitions under Windows (and about a dozen other filesystems for that matter). I haven't actually tried, but I'd expect that you can even have ext2 within a _file_ using the Deamon tools or such, so you'd probably not even need a partition for that. > >> Andre' is obviously a very competent programmer and he knows what > >> he is doing. > > Have I ever said something different? I just wasn't happy that he > didn't thought about all consequences of the renamings. To be precise: I chose not to care too much. I knew that I will be around all the time, so at worst there's a lag of a few hours in case something goes wrong until it get fixed. If I'd double checked every single rename by starting with a clean tree I/we would not have been able to finish within a week. Having everything in a big commit would not have worked either as there had been several substantial changes outside that would have broken the 'single shot rename'. > I hope you can understand that I'm not very happy as I have three > times this week to check out the sources completely to a new tree > because it was broken after SVN checkout trys. See above. I doubt your tree was actually broken. However, I understand you are not happy that it did not work out-of-the-box _twice_ this week. > I think we can close this discussion now as it was not my intention to > begin personal flame wars. My intention was to lead to focus back to > bug fixing than to more renaming actions. I have no problems with personal flame wars as long as the technical issues are stated correctly. Andre'
