> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpil...@collab.net> writes: > > > On 04/11/2011 05:53 AM, Philip Martin wrote: > >> "C. Michael Pilato" <cmpil...@collab.net> 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 import -mm repo/format file://`pwd`/repo/A/B/f > >> svn import -mm repo/format file://`pwd`/repo/A/B/C/g > >> svn co file://`pwd`/repo wc > >> svn sw ^/A/B/C wc/A/B > >> svn cp wc/A wc/X > >> > >> Using 1.6 the copy of the switch does not show up in status. > Using 1.6 > >> the switch does not count as a local modification and gets > ignored by > >> the the commit harvester. After the commit 1.6 shows wc/X/B as > >> switched. > >> > >> If I make a text modification within the switched subdir before > commit: > >> > >> echo xx >> wc/X/B/g > >> > >> then the commit fails because it attempts to modify /X/B/g in > the > >> repoository and that file does not exist. The fact that 1.6 > attempts to > >> commit modifications to the wrong file is a definite bug, if the > path > >> existed and the checksums matched the commit would go through. > >> > >> 1.7 treats the copy of the switch as a local modification that > gets > >> committed as a replace; after the commit there is no switch. > The test > >> is new in 1.7 and it's not clear to me that the new behaviour is > >> correct. > > > > Man, my gut says to just not allow folks to copy trees with > switched > > children until we have a more-fully-formed vision regarding how > to deal with > > the overlap of the copy and switch concepts. (Of course, that > sanity check > > would need to *not* block copies of trees with file externals ... > our > > now-routine "when is switched not *really* switched" exception.) > Yes, I > > realize that this might be considered the cop-out position to > take. I'm > > okay with that.
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 where I work has caused problems. Yes mostly due to lack of understanding. If you want children to be from a different path than the root of the WC shouldn't you be using externals? BOb
