On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Branko Čibej <br...@wandisco.com> wrote: > On 08.01.2013 11:24, Johan Corveleyn wrote: >> (all as disjoint working copies, the sparse working copy feature >> is/was a bit too obscure for me, so I didn't know about that. I just >> checked out one after the other the things I need). > > This is actually an argument for my point of view. :) > > Subversion provides a feature that solves all the cases you mentioned,
No it doesn't. See Bert's earlier response in this thread [1]. > including refactoring between different projects, yet you don't use it > because it's "too obscure". Well, like it or not, but sparse working copies are still a kind of power-user feature. Besides, often the user / IDE does not know in advance that they will end up with multiple projects/modules/wc's. They start with one simple module, and it grows from there. Little do they know in advance that they should have checked out the parent (with depth=empty) and should have built a sparse WC from there. > Instead you expect another feature to be > delayed because we currently do not know how to transactionally modify > several working-copy databases at the same time. No I don't. I'm okay with having a graceful fallback to a non-tracking move, without breaking what worked in 1.7. I first thought this would be broken, but it seems not (see [2]). > Why not make the effort to make sparse working copies less obscure instead? I'm doing that in my organisation. But I don't have the time right now to do something for that in general for the project. I'm just trying to point out that we shouldn't break something that works right now. [1] http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-01/0176.shtml [2] http://svn.haxx.se/dev/archive-2013-01/0167.shtml -- Johan
