Hi, I wouldn't call for a complete ban but it looks like one has to be extra careful. Restructuring should be done in CWS which lives only a very short time. Best, say, opened on one milestone and integrated in the next (as first CWS) this would minimize the potential for data loss. Doing the restructuring in a big CWS which needs many month to complete won't do it, I completely agree here.
I think I remember having read something about a warning system someone devised but I just can't find the reference, Have to look harder. Heiner Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote: > Hi Stephan, > >> So, back to good old manual merging: Remember which files you moved >> in your CWS, and after every rebase, check whether they miss any >> changes to the original files. Sigh. > > With the additional hurdle that nobody will warn you about the lost > changes. If the compiler finds them, that's fine, but if you just lose a > small bug fix, then may not notice this at all. > >> However, what worries me deeply is the "[not] true data loss" scenario >> upon svn merge --reintegrate described at >> <http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.5/svn.branchmerge.advanced.html#svn.branchmerge.advanced.moves >> >> >. A disaster waiting to happen, I would say. Or am I missing >> something? > > I tend to agree here. Just recently asked Heiner about this, and in my > opinion, both scenarios effectively mean we should completely ban "svn > move", as it has a pretty large potential to silently destroy our code base. > > Which is a pity, as this is *the* feature of SVN which made it worth > suffering the additional complexity introduced with it. > > Ciao > Frank > -- Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]