Johan Corveleyn wrote on Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 01:08:24 +0200: > 2011/4/22 Branko Čibej <br...@e-reka.si>: > > Meh. For now, just hack a special case so that committing one half of a > > case-only rename will automagically commit the other half. Shouldn't be > > too hard to do, and it's almost impossible to do the wrong thing -- > > after all, you're constrained by a) staying in the same directory, and > > b) both halves of a rename resolving to the same on-disk file on a > > case-insensitive file system. > > Sounds like another option. A small change here and there to make > case-only renames work specifically (and not solve the more general > problem of fixing path-guessing via wc-db or truepaths). > > The fact of the matter is that, for sane setups/companies, > case-clashes are going to be really rare, *except when doing case-only > renames*. A repository holding 'Foo', 'FOo' and 'FOO' would be a > repository that's un-checkoutable on a case-insensitive filesystem > anyway. So I'd expect companies that have to support case-insensitive > clients to keep real case-clashes out of their repository (or fix them > as soon as they are discovered). > > So maybe "case-only rename" (and perhaps "case-only replace" > (delete+add w/o history)) is the only use-case we need to go for. But > apart from commit, we should maybe also make "revert" possible, as > well as adding to and removing from changelists ... (hm, commit would > be the main thing I guess, revert can always be done in two steps > (revert the add, then the delete), changelists ... oh well). >
Another use-case: When r1 contains a file 'Foo', r2 contains a file 'foo', the working copy is at uniform revision r2, and the user types 'svn up -r1 Foo'. There is also a variant where Foo@r1 is a directory rather than a file, but that's getting contrived. > I'd love to hear some more input ... > > Cheers,
