On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:06, Apache subversion Wiki <comm...@subversion.apache.org> wrote: >... > + == Problem Cases == > + > + Move A to B: > + > + || op-depth || local-relpath || presence || revision || repos || > moved-to || > + || 0 || A || normal || 1 || A || > || > + || 0 || A/f || normal || 1 || A/f || > || > + || 1 || A || base-deleted || 1 || A || B > || > + || 1 || A/f || base-deleted || 1 || A/f || > || > + || 1 || B || normal || 1 || A || > || > + || 1 || B/f || normal || 1 || A/f || > || > + > + Delete B/f and replace with something copied from elsewhere: > + > + || op-depth || local-relpath || presence || revision || repos || > moved-to || > + || 0 || A || normal || 1 || A || > || > + || 0 || A/f || normal || 1 || A/f || > || > + || 1 || A || base-deleted || 1 || A || B > || > + || 1 || A/f || base-deleted || 1 || A/f || > || > + || 1 || B || normal || 1 || A || > || > + || 1 || B/f || normal || 1 || A/f || > || > + || 2 || B/f || normal || 1 || X || > ||
Wouldn't the B/f line at op_depth==1 have not-present to indicate that it was deleted? > + > + Now update A and go through the mixed-revision base tree: we can't > represent the mixed-revision copy since that would require B/f at op-depth=2 > to record both A/f@2 and X@1. Hm? I would expect the A/f@2 to be in the op_depth==1 line, and B/f at op_depth==2 to continue to refer to X@1. Cheers, -g
