Greg Stein <gst...@gmail.com> writes: > I think the update should ask, "apply edits to A/f to your moved B/f?".
If the user says "no" then I think we would have to break the move and convert it into a copy + delete. If the user copies A/f@3 to B/f and then updates A/f to r4, it doesn't make sense for B/f to remain a move. Note that the destination isn't always a working file. Consider a working copy with 3 files A/Y/f, B/Y/f, C/Y/f. Move A to X, delete X/Y, move B/Y to X/Y, delete X/Y/f, move C/Y/f to X/Y/f: op-depth local-relpath presence moved-to moved-here 0 A normal 0 A/Y normal 0 A/Y/f normal 1 A deleted X 1 A/Y deleted 1 A/Y/f deleted 0 B normal 0 B/Y normal 0 B/Y/f normal 2 B/Y deleted X/Y 2 B/Y/f deleted 0 C normal 0 C/Y normal 0 C/Y/f normal 3 C/Y/f deleted X/Y/f 1 X normal 1 1 X/Y normal 1 1 X/Y/f normal 1 2 X/Y normal 1 2 X/Y/f normal 1 3 X/Y/f normal 1 So the file X/Y/f exists at op-depth 1, 2 and 3. An update that changes B/Y/f needs to update the row X/Y/f at op-depth 2 although no change is made to the working file. -- uberSVN: Apache Subversion Made Easy http://www.uberSVN.com