There's a huge problem with that: it breaks links to files in the repo.
I have more than once permalinked there when explaining stuff in
stackoverflow, for example.
Diego
On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 08:33, Stephen Bohlen <[email protected]> wrote:
> That's actually a really good suggestion (commit a broad delete op to the
> SVN repo along with something like my suggested txt file); I'd not
> considered that approach. This way, anyone blindly updating their copy of
> the trunk wouldn't even get any actual code but would be left with just the
> txt file, making it impossible (hopefully!) for them to not notice that
> *something* changed.
>
> I agree tags + branches should remain in SVN as-is since those are probably
> supposed to be considered stable/unchanging.
>
> What do others think of this approach?
>
>
> Steve Bohlen
> [email protected]
> http://blog.unhandled-exceptions.com
> http://twitter.com/sbohlen
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Ramon Smits <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> A pretty obvious way is to commit the deletion of the whole svn contents.
>>> That way the history is preserved, but if one updates, the checkout is
>>> empty, except for the README of course.
>>>
>>
>> I would suggest to only do this for the /trunk as keep the tags and
>> branches as is.
>>
>> --
>> Ramon
>>
>
>
