On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@apache.org> wrote: > On Tue, Jan 08, 2013 at 01:22:42PM +0100, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> Then let's say +0. I'd like it even better if this could be handled >> correctly with move-tracking, but I can't help in any meaningful way >> myself with that (and I rather agree that we shouldn't postpone >> releasing for too long, and keep nice things from our users), so I'll >> thankfully accept any working solution you guys (anyone) can implement >> in a reasonable timeframe :-). > > What do you hope to achieve, in terms of practical use cases, by > tracking moves across disjoint working copies? > > Do you want to enforce that both working copies need to be committed > together, so that the move happens as a copy+delete in a single revision? > > Or are you thinking about the case where an update or merge acts on a > local move, and where this action conflicts? Would you expect to be > able to resolve conflicts across disjoint working copies??? > > Or anything else?
No, can't think of anything else right now. Those two move-tracking-enabled enhancements would be nice. But I can see that it would be really hard to do this with disjoint working copies, and I agree that it's perfectly defensible to punt on this now. As long as the pre-1.8 behavior keeps working in that case (i.e. you can do it all, you just have no single-commit protection, no conflict resolution help). -- Johan
