"C. Michael Pilato" <cmpil...@collab.net> writes: > Stas, you are quite right that the messaging here is important, if only to > avoid hurt feelings. Your use-case is a valid one, and we'd all do well not > to discount it. But Subversion simply wasn't designed to accommodate it. > And this isn't even a small "oops we overlooked it" thing. This is a > fundamental difference between the tagging and branching paradigms in CVS > and Subversion -- a difference introduced intentionally when Subversion was > conceived.
I think Stas has a point here. Subversion already does something similar for mixed revision working copies and switched working copies. If one copies such a working copy to the repository the revision will include appropriate deletes and replaces to "match" the working copy. Now if one checks out such an URL it produces a simple, single revision working copy, not the original mixed or switched one, but from a content point of view it looks like the original. I don't think it would be unreasonable for Subversion to do treat sparse working copies in the same way. -- Philip
