bjoern michaelsen - Sun Microsystems - Hamburg Germany wrote: > Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I wouldn't call for a complete ban but it looks like one has to be extra >> careful. Restructuring should be done in CWS which lives only a very >> short time. Best, say, opened on one milestone and integrated in the >> next (as first CWS) this would minimize the potential for data loss.
> As first CWS? Wouldnt that doom any changes from other CWS on the moved > files because the file is already deleted when they are itegrated. > *Confused* I thought _last_ CWS would be the safest ... That's not a problem because changes to no longer exiting files will trigger warnings. Heiner > > Still data loss is possible even in this scenario, which IMHO is very > scary. > > I would feel much more comfortable, if a naked move wouldnt be possible. > As an (ugly, very ugly) workaround for now, we might need a command in > the cws tool that registers the moved files by their "old name" (the > name it is known as on the master) somewhere. This could be either in a > svn property (on trunk??) or in a "administrative file" somewhere. It > should at least be noted, if changes to a file are wandering to /dev/null. > > Have Fun, Björn > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
