Julian Foad <julianf...@btopenworld.com> writes:
> Example 3: Swapping two directory levels
>
> | |
> +--A --\ /--> +--A
> | X |
> +--B --/ \--> +--B
>
> 1. alter-dir A (children={}) ### Needed?
>
> 2. mv-away A/B (id=”original A/B”)
>
> 3. alter-dir / (children={A})
>
> 4. mv-away A (id=”original A”)
>
> 5. mv-here A (id=”original A/B”)
>
> 6. alter-dir A (children={B}) ### Second alter-dir on same path, if (1)
> was needed.
>
> 7. mv-here A/B (id=”original A”)
That's inconsistent: for A alter-dir is before mv-away while for A/B
alter-dir is after mv-away. A more consistent set of steps would be:
1. alter-dir A/B (children={A})
2. alter-dir A (children={})
3. mv-away A/B (id="original A/B")
4. mv-away A (id="original A")
5. mv-here A (id="original A/B")
6. mv-here A/B (id="original A")
Not sure whether 1 and 2 have any particular order. In the working copy
receiver the alter-dir for A/B causes A to be added as incomplete in
A/B; it becomes complete at step 6. I'm not sure whether the alter-dir
for A that deletes a child causes anything to be marked.
> There are two potential problems here:
>
> * We make an edit within subtree A (the “move-away A/B”) before moving A
>
> * The “alter-dir A” is performed twice
In this case there is no need to perform alter-dir on A twice.
As you pointed out when a copy replaces a mv-away it is still necessary
to alter-dir two different nodes at the same path:
1. alter-dir A (children={...})
2. mv-away A (id=...)
3. copy A (src=...)
4. alter-dir A (children={...})
[...]
--
Philip Martin | Subversion Committer
WANdisco // *Non-Stop Data*
