Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Jody Garnett a écrit :
>> But the old file is still there (and in use?)
> It doesn't matter; many files can share common history. And this file
> will be removed soon, so the history will be lost if we didn't used
> "svn copy".
Understood; I am backing out my changes
Jody Garnett a écrit :
> But the old file is still there (and in use?)
It doesn't matter; many files can share common history. And this file will be
removed soon, so the history will be lost if we didn't used "svn copy".
> If I understand you I should ...
> # svn mv old new
> # svn add old (mak
Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Jody Garnett a écrit :
>> I believe it is because the origional FactoryGroup is still there
>> (and has the history). I am doing the create a new class, deprecate
>> the old one, and making the old one extend the new one routine.
> You should use "svn copy". This is v
Jody Garnett a écrit :
> I believe it is because the origional FactoryGroup is still there (and
> has the history). I am doing the create a new class, deprecate the old
> one, and making the old one extend the new one routine.
You should use "svn copy". This is very important in order to keep th
I believe it is because the origional FactoryGroup is still there (and
has the history). I am doing the create a new class, deprecate the old
one, and making the old one extend the new one routine.
Cheers,
Jody
Martin Desruisseaux wrote:
> Why the following:
>
> svn log
> modules/library/refer
Martin, could you postpone this a little bit? Let's say one week or
ten days. I am ok with renaming but it would break things in a couple
of places and next week I won't have time to fix them.
Simone.
On 8/30/06, Martin Desruisseaux <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The following classes were recently
