Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> writes: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 08:07:47PM +0100, Philip Martin wrote: >> Running update also makes mixed-rev source into single-rev so I'd be >> happy not to support mixed-rev move, except that update a single-rev >> tree from one rev to another goes through mixed-rev. > > IMO we don't need to support mixed-rev move at all if it causes > too much pain. If people *really* needed that, they could still > run a mixed-rev-copy+delete. > > Remember that this is a new feature. We can freely add constraints > to it until it gets released.
I think we may be able to resolve the problem by using tree-conflicts. Consider A moved-to B and an update to A/f that cannot be applied to B/f. We can apply the update to the base node of A/f but we cannot apply it to the moved node B/f for some reason (B/f is deleted or replaced say). This will generate a tree-conflict. After the update we have a move that is "broken" because the source has been updated and the destination has not but it is still marked as a move, plus we have a tree-conlfict. The process of resolving the tree-conflict will either convert the move into delete+copy, or involve getting the tree into a state such that the move can be followed. -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com
