Philip Martin wrote on Mon, Mar 07, 2011 at 09:28:43 +0000: > Daniel Shahaf <d...@daniel.shahaf.name> writes: > > > On IRC, Bert and I were in disagreement as to how 'svn up' should behave > > in intersection with locally-added trees: whether 'update' should always > > affect the BASE tree (irrespective of any locally-replaced trees), or > > whether it should be interpreted as applying to the overlaying tree > > (i.e., the higher op_depth). > > > > Another point that Bert raised was whether 'svn up addeddir' and 'svn up > > addeddir/some/child' should both work, in light of the semantics (i.e., > > invalidity) of rooting an update editor at an added path. > > > > > > Some scenarios: > > > > % svn cp A A2; svn up A2/ > > > > % svn cp A A2; svn up A2/mu > > > > % svn rm A2; svn cp A A2; svn up A2/ > > > > % svn rm A2; svn cp A A2; cd A2; svn up > > > > % svn rm A2; svn cp A A2; cd A2; svn up mu > > At present the copyfrom revision of A2 is fixed at the time of the copy. > Updating a copy, or inside a copy, could be useful if the copy is > incomplete; it could be "resume an interrupted copy". It's debateable > whether this should be part of update or copy. >
And even within a "fixed copyfrom revision" setting, 'svn up mu' might be interpreted as "update mu to its copyfrom revision" --- which is a no-op. (except when mu had been /bin/rm'd earlier) > It's also possible that update could "see through" the copy and update > any deleted base nodes below, but that is of limited use to the user. > > A more interesting feature would be a dynamic HEAD copy, where the > copyfrom revision is not fixed at the time of the copy. Then update of > the copy would be a real operation that modified the WORKING layer. > > > >> The update editor should not look at layers above op_depth 0. Nodes > >> can only be added below an existing op_depth 0 node. > >> > >> If the update editor would touch something in the higher layers just > >> a (tree) conflict should be raised. (And in some specific cases > >> things might be automatically handled for compatibility reasons) > > One case where update affects the working layer is where the update adds > a new node to a deleted directory. The code doesn't raise a tree > conflict but extends the delete to cover the new node. > > -- > Philip
