"Bert Huijben" writes:
> Ok, if I read this right you are assuming that that the switched path
> doesn't have local modifications.
No.
Here's an example:
svnadmin create repo
svn mkdir -mm --parents file://`pwd`/repo/A/B/C
svn cp -mm file://`pwd`/repo/A file://`pwd`/repo/X
svn co file://`pwd`/
On 04/12/2011 06:32 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> "Bert Huijben" writes:
>
>> I like to think of it this way (and the current WC-NG tree model agrees):
>>
>> A wc-wc copy is created from what is currently in your working copy and
>> copies are not affected by BASE operations; just like a non svn cop
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: dinsdag 12 april 2011 12:32
> To: Bert Huijben
> Cc: 'C. Michael Pilato'; dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1089856 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversio
"Bert Huijben" writes:
> I like to think of it this way (and the current WC-NG tree model agrees):
>
> A wc-wc copy is created from what is currently in your working copy and
> copies are not affected by BASE operations; just like a non svn copy would
> do.
>
> So following this reasoning a copy
> -Original Message-
> From: Bert Huijben [mailto:b...@qqmail.nl]
> Sent: maandag 11 april 2011 19:09
> To: 'Philip Martin'; 'C. Michael Pilato'
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: svn commit: r1089856 -
> /subversion/trunk
On 04/11/2011 01:04 PM, Bob Archer wrote:
> I would even ask... why allow switched children? Is this really a heavily
> used feature of svn... or is it just a byproduct of the current WC
> implementation that a small percentage of users are taking advantage. I
> know people having switch children w
> -Original Message-
> From: Philip Martin [mailto:philip.mar...@wandisco.com]
> Sent: maandag 11 april 2011 18:15
> To: C. Michael Pilato
> Cc: dev@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: svn commit: r1089856 -
> /subversion/trunk/subversion/tests/cmdline/switch_test
> "C. Michael Pilato" writes:
>
> > On 04/11/2011 05:53 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> >> "C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> >>
> >>> But we obviously have precedent for supporting committed copies
> >>> of deeply switched things, so perhaps this isn't the best use
> of our time
> >>> right now.
> >>
> >
"C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> On 04/11/2011 05:53 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
>> "C. Michael Pilato" writes:
>>
>>> But we obviously have precedent for supporting committed copies
>>> of deeply switched things, so perhaps this isn't the best use of our time
>>> right now.
>>
>> "Support" is gener
On 04/11/2011 05:53 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" writes:
>
>> But we obviously have precedent for supporting committed copies
>> of deeply switched things, so perhaps this isn't the best use of our time
>> right now.
>
> "Support" is generous, we only really support copied swit
"C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> But we obviously have precedent for supporting committed copies
> of deeply switched things, so perhaps this isn't the best use of our time
> right now.
"Support" is generous, we only really support copied switches with no
modifications:
svnadmin create repo
svn im
On 04/08/2011 08:39 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" writes:
>
>> On 04/08/2011 04:48 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
>>> Not sure I understand. Are you saying that "copy then switch then
>>> commit" should be the same as "copy then commit then switch"?
>>
>> I'm suggesting that "copy A Z
"C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> On 04/08/2011 04:48 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
>> Not sure I understand. Are you saying that "copy then switch then
>> commit" should be the same as "copy then commit then switch"?
>
> I'm suggesting that "copy A Z; switch Z/D; commit Z" should be the same as
> "switc
On 04/08/2011 04:48 AM, Philip Martin wrote:
> "C. Michael Pilato" writes:
>
>> 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
"C. Michael Pilato" writes:
> 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
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.
phi...@apache.org writes:
> Author: philip
> Date: Thu Apr 7 12:34:33 2011
> New Revision: 1089856
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1089856&view=rev
> Log:
> Make switch_tests.py 38 into a PASS. It was failing because of an
> 'R'/'A' difference between WCNG status and the old entries-ba
17 matches
Mail list logo
