Nathan Hartman:
> Because '-r' tells SVN to look for that path in the HEAD
> revision and then follow it back to the specified
> revision.
>
> Try using a peg revision instead:
> svn switch ^^/Client/B1/Addons/AddCost/@1431 --ignore-ancestry
>
> See: http://svnbook.red-bean.com/en/1.7/svn.advanced
On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 10:59 AM Anton Shepelev wrote:
> I want to `switch' to a location that existsed in a previous
> revision, but has since been moved. I invoke:
>
>svn switch -r 1431 ^^/Client/B1/Addons/AddCost/ --ignore-ancestry
>
> and receive:
>
>svn: E160013: '/svn/Sources/!svn/r
branch that has any new libraries.
Switching away from that type of branch works fine.
-Original Message-
From: Travis Brown [mailto:trav...@travisbrown.ca]
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2013 2:58 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Subversion
Subject: Re: Switching
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 01:31:49PM
intenance headache than it's worth.
--
Travis
>
>-Original Message-
>From: Travis Brown [mailto:trav...@travisbrown.ca]
>Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 5:58 PM
>To: Les Mikesell; Ryan Schmidt; Branko ??ibej; Subversion;
>d...@subversion.apache.org; John Maher
>
On 26.08.2013 15:31, John Maher wrote:
> Hello
>
> Can you provide me with a link as to how to apply this patch? When I search
> for applying a subversion patch all I get is stuff involving svn diff. I
> think the patch may be safer than using --force with switch for which all the
> ramificati
-
From: Travis Brown [mailto:trav...@travisbrown.ca]
Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2013 5:58 PM
To: Les Mikesell; Ryan Schmidt; Branko ??ibej; Subversion;
d...@subversion.apache.org; John Maher
Subject: Re: Switching
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 09:53:14PM +0200, Stefan Sperling claimed:
>On Sat,
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 03:44:05PM -0700, Travis Brown wrote:
> I took a brief look at the resolution code and found it to be a twisty
> maze of callbacks and workqueues. There didn't appear to be any existing
> infrastructure or obvious way to resolve the tree conflict on the
> directory and then
On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 11:46:11AM +0200, Stefan Sperling claimed:
>Looking at just one use case is not going to help us in the long term.
>And I don't think we should hard-code conflict resolution behaviour in
>the update/switch/merge logic.
>
>During 1.8 development, I did experiment with hard-co
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 02:57:50PM -0700, Travis Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 09:53:14PM +0200, Stefan Sperling claimed:
> >On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:26:41PM -0700, Travis Brown wrote:
> >> That's just overcomplicating the issue. This doesn't even need to
> >> become a tree conflict.
> >
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 09:53:14PM +0200, Stefan Sperling claimed:
>On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:26:41PM -0700, Travis Brown wrote:
>> That's just overcomplicating the issue. This doesn't even need to
>> become a tree conflict.
>
>In my opinion it does need to be flagged as a conflict. Because we
>do
On 24.08.2013 21:26, Travis Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 09:04:48PM +0200, Stefan Sperling claimed:
>> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:22:41AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Don't forget that it was subversion, not the user, that created the
>>> directory and abandoned it in the first place.
>
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 02:18:59PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> > I hope that we will eventually extend tree conflict handling to the
> > point where it makes these kinds of situations trivial to resolve,
> > even for novice users. svn shou
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 12:26:41PM -0700, Travis Brown wrote:
> That's just overcomplicating the issue. This doesn't even need to
> become a tree conflict.
In my opinion it does need to be flagged as a conflict. Because we
don't know what the contents of the incoming directory will be nor
what the
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 09:04:48PM +0200, Stefan Sperling claimed:
>On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:22:41AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Don't forget that it was subversion, not the user, that created the
>> directory and abandoned it in the first place.
>
>If a previously versioned directory is left b
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Stefan Sperling wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:22:41AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Don't forget that it was subversion, not the user, that created the
>> directory and abandoned it in the first place.
>
> If a previously versioned directory is left behind un
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 10:22:41AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Don't forget that it was subversion, not the user, that created the
> directory and abandoned it in the first place.
If a previously versioned directory is left behind unversioned, that
means there are unversioned (aka obstructing) no
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 6:51 AM, Ryan Schmidt
wrote:
>
>>> *This* is the problem we're discussing. *This* is what Subversion should be
>>> smart enough to avoid. None of the discussion I've read thus far gives me a
>>> convincing explanation for why this should not be possible.
>>
>> You're assu
On Sat, Aug 24, 2013 at 2:48 AM, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 24.08.2013 03:44, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 2013, at 13:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edwin Castro wrote:
>>>
> I can't, off the top of my head, think of a scenario where it would be
> harmf
On 24.08.2013 13:51, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Aug 24, 2013, at 02:48, Branko Čibej wrote:
>> On 24.08.2013 03:44, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>>> On Aug 23, 2013, at 13:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
I think it is the problem we've been discussing. Leaving them means
you have to keep the containing dir
On Aug 24, 2013, at 02:48, Branko Čibej wrote:
> On 24.08.2013 03:44, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
>> On Aug 23, 2013, at 13:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> I think it is the problem we've been discussing. Leaving them means
>>> you have to keep the containing directory, which becomes unversioned
>>> as you sw
On 24.08.2013 03:44, Ryan Schmidt wrote:
> On Aug 23, 2013, at 13:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edwin Castro wrote:
>>
I can't, off the top of my head, think of a scenario where it would be
harmful to replace an unversioned directory with a versioned instan
On Aug 23, 2013, at 13:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edwin Castro wrote:
>
>>> I can't, off the top of my head, think of a scenario where it would be
>>> harmful to replace an unversioned directory with a versioned instance,
>>> leaving any unversioned local files th
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Andrew Reedick
wrote:
>>
>> I can't, off the top of my head, think of a scenario where it would be
>> harmful to replace an unversioned directory with a versioned instance,
>> leaving any unversioned local files that happen to be there alone.
>> Other than maybe th
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Edwin Castro
> Cc: Subversion
> Subject: Re: Switching
>
>
> I can't, off the top of my head, think of a scenario where it would be
>
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Edwin Castro <0ptikgh...@gmx.us> wrote:
>> I can't, off the top of my head, think of a scenario where it would be
>> harmful to replace an unversioned directory with a versioned instance,
>> leaving any unversioned local files that happen to be there alone.
>
> Lea
On 8/23/13 10:34 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I can't, off the top of my head, think of a scenario where it would be
> harmful to replace an unversioned directory with a versioned instance,
> leaving any unversioned local files that happen to be there alone.
Leaving unversioned local files alone in a
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Edwin Castro <0ptikgh...@gmx.us> wrote:
>>>
>> I don't buy the argument about different histories: the pre-existing
>> directory doesn't have a subversion history, so from svn's point of
>> view there is no conflict. What are the real, practical problems that
>> y
Good to know, thank you.
-Original Message-
From: Stefan Sperling [mailto:s...@elego.de]
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2013 12:50 PM
To: Edwin Castro
Cc: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Switching
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 09:24:52AM -0700, Edwin Castro wrote:
> I think the mail
On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 09:24:52AM -0700, Edwin Castro wrote:
> I think the mailing list has already said the *best* way to use switch
> is to have a clean working copy (clean out all ignored and unversioned
> files which is admittedly inconvenient).
This won't help right now, but cleaning out suc
On 8/23/13 7:43 AM, John Maher wrote:
> The files in question are settings files (think config files) and
> intermediate compilet generated files. The settings files can be recreated
> at any time. If they are wrong the only thing affected is the development
> environment. The other files get
On 8/23/13 7:43 AM, John Maher wrote:
> The question is can I bring back my working directory from a failed switch
> (I'm talking undo, not resolve) so I can use the force option or must I
> always use the force option to be able to switch branches?
I think the mailing list has already said the
On 8/23/13 8:16 AM, Anders J. Munch wrote:
> Edwin Castro wrote:
>> I think the --force option is dangerous. Try it out but, in my opinion,
>> you should not use it.
> Why? Doesn't it perfectly solve the described problem?
The problem with --force, as the documentation points out, is that it
can m
Edwin Castro wrote:
> I think the --force option is dangerous. Try it out but, in my opinion,
> you should not use it.
Why? Doesn't it perfectly solve the described problem?
I had like so many others given up on switch, because cleaning up
working copies prior to the switch was annoying busywork,
lve) so I can use the force option or must I always use
the force option to be able to switch branches?
Have a good weekend
JM
-Original Message-
From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 5:17 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Edwin Castro; users@subversion.apach
On 8/22/13 3:00 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Why can svn not, instead, simply interpret an already existing directory
>> > as not a conflict? Certainly if a versioned file would overwrite an
>> > unversioned file of the same name then that is a true conflict because
>> > the content may differ. A dir
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Travis Brown wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:16:49PM -0500, Les Mikesell claimed:
>
>>The contents of the file are irrelevant. The point is that it has to
>>either be versioned so svn can delete it knowing that you can get it
>>back, and then delete the conta
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:16:49PM -0500, Les Mikesell claimed:
>The contents of the file are irrelevant. The point is that it has to
>either be versioned so svn can delete it knowing that you can get it
>back, and then delete the containing directory that is really the
>issue, or you have to del
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:34 PM, John Maher wrote:
> Again Les, you misunderstand. I have no problems with the workspace. It is
> exactly the same for everyone, everytime. Please read carefully before you
> respond. It has nothing to do with the build. It is user settings, a config
> file,
> irrelevant ramblings. Should quit while you're ahead.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Edwin Castro [mailto:0ptikgh...@gmx.us]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:30 PM
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Switching
>
> On 8/22/13 10:54 AM, John Maher
On Aug 22, 2013, at 13:39, John Maher wrote:
> You digress. Not a single one of the compiled libraries lives within the
> versioned directories. Please read the question before replying incorrectly.
> It has nothing to do with code. It has nothing to do with the build.
> Please ask for c
suggestion
with the force option. Then you wandered off to completely irrelevant
ramblings. Should quit while you're ahead.
-Original Message-
From: Edwin Castro [mailto:0ptikgh...@gmx.us]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:30 PM
To: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Swit
x27;t understand please ask
for clarification instead of making incorrect assumptions.
-Original Message-
From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 2:28 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Edwin Castro; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Switching
On Thu, Aug 22, 20
On 8/22/13 10:54 AM, John Maher wrote:
> This happens even if you do not do a build. There is a class library in one
> branch but not the other mixed with unversioned files that I can do nothing
> about.
Statements like this make me believe that build system is broken. I
would expect the svn sw
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:58 PM, John Maher wrote:
> You are correct that there will be issues with a fresh checkout. But I can
> live with that.
Not caring if you can reproduce a workspace is a bold statement to
make on a version control mail list. Don't be surprised if everyone
doesn't agre
oices others have made by
> versioning it.
>
> Think config or settings file.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:53 PM
> To: John Maher
> Cc: Edwin Castro; users@subversion.apache.org
&
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:52 PM, John Maher wrote:
> I'll try to clarify, everyone has their own copy of the tool. They also have
> their own copy of their settings. The problem arises because the tool stores
> the settings files in the same folder as some code specific files. This can
> no
versioning
it.
Think config or settings file.
-Original Message-
From: Les Mikesell [mailto:lesmikes...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:53 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Edwin Castro; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Switching
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:43 PM, John Maher
John Maher writes:
> I use one folder for my source code (all branches) mainly because of
> vendor requirements the code must be run from the same directory. I
> have created two branches for two new features. One feature extends
> an existing library. The other feature adds a new library as w
Maher; Johan Corveleyn
Cc: Thorsten Schöning; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: RE: Switching
> -Original Message-
> From: John Maher [mailto:jo...@rotair.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Johan Corveleyn
> Cc: Thorsten Schöning; users@subversion.apach
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:43 PM, John Maher wrote:
>
> The clean up script is a good idea but won't work here. We have mostly all
> class libraries. One executable. This means to test we need to specify an
> application in the project. Some developers use the exe while some use a
> tool ma
22, 2013 1:30 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Thorsten Schöning; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Switching
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:15 PM, John Maher wrote:
> "How about just 'delete the spurious unversioned files yourself'?"
>
> As I said in the previous reply, two
> -Original Message-
> From: John Maher [mailto:jo...@rotair.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:34 PM
> To: Johan Corveleyn
> Cc: Thorsten Schöning; users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Switching
>
>
> The problem isn't something in the
-
From: Edwin Castro [mailto:0ptikgh...@gmx.us]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:22 PM
To: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Switching
On 8/22/13 7:59 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:30 AM, John Maher wrote:
>> >
>> > @Andrew there is no need for a s
the only one who had this problem. I'm betting that there is
some unintuitive solution to this.
JM
-Original Message-
From: Johan Corveleyn [mailto:jcor...@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:13 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Thorsten Schöning; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re:
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 12:15 PM, John Maher wrote:
> "How about just 'delete the spurious unversioned files yourself'?"
>
> As I said in the previous reply, two of those files are user settings. They
> would have to be constantly recreated by the developer. That increases
> costs. One of the
On 8/22/13 7:59 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:30 AM, John Maher wrote:
>> >
>> > @Andrew there is no need for a svn copy. I do not want to copy a feature
>> > in one branch to another; I wish to keep the code isolated.
>> >
>> > And yes I know subversion won't delete unvers
nt: Thursday, August 22, 2013 1:11 PM
To: John Maher
Cc: Thorsten Schöning; users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Switching
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Maher wrote:
> I don't think you even tried Thorsten,
>
> I can easily. There are actually several options.
How abou
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:48 PM, John Maher wrote:
> Actually I would call the problem the way I am using the tool. Since no one
> has provided a better solution there may not be one. ...
>
Did you read my previous mail in this thread? IMO a better solution in
your case is not to use switch, b
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 11:40 AM, John Maher wrote:
> I don't think you even tried Thorsten,
>
> I can easily. There are actually several options.
How about just 'delete the spurious unversioned files yourself'? The
problem is the versioned directory containing them that is not
supposed to exi
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Thorsten Schöning [mailto:tschoen...@am-soft.de]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:21 PM
> > To: users@subversion.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Switching
> >
> > How would you like Subversion to work in your case
ried.
-Original Message-
From: Thorsten Schöning [mailto:tschoen...@am-soft.de]
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:21 PM
To: users@subversion.apache.org
Subject: Re: Switching
Guten Tag John Maher,
am Donnerstag, 22. August 2013 um 17:48 schrieben Sie:
> Actually I would call the pr
> -Original Message-
> From: Thorsten Schöning [mailto:tschoen...@am-soft.de]
> Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2013 12:21 PM
> To: users@subversion.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Switching
>
> How would you like Subversion to work in your case? From my
> understanding it
Guten Tag John Maher,
am Donnerstag, 22. August 2013 um 17:48 schrieben Sie:
> Actually I would call the problem the way I am using the tool.
> Since no one has provided a better solution there may not be one.
> Perhaps no one considered switching between branches where there
> could exist a dire
sten Schöning; Subversion help
Subject: Re: Switching
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:30 AM, John Maher wrote:
>
> @Andrew there is no need for a svn copy. I do not want to copy a feature in
> one branch to another; I wish to keep the code isolated.
>
> And yes I know subversion won'
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 6:30 AM, John Maher wrote:
>
> @Andrew there is no need for a svn copy. I do not want to copy a feature in
> one branch to another; I wish to keep the code isolated.
>
> And yes I know subversion won't delete unversioned files, I appreciate the
> info on how subversion w
On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:30 PM, John Maher wrote:
> Thanks for your replies Andrew and Thorsten.
>
>
> @Andrew there is no need for a svn copy. I do not want to copy a feature in
> one branch to another; I wish to keep the code isolated.
>
> And yes I know subversion won't delete unversioned fi
7;ll check stackoverflow before I give up.
Thanks anyway
JM
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Reedick [mailto:andrew.reed...@cbeyond.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 4:02 PM
To: John Maher; Subversion help
Subject: RE: Switching
> -Original Message-
> From: John Maher [mailto:
Guten Tag John Maher,
am Dienstag, 20. August 2013 um 19:33 schrieben Sie:
> For example, when I switch to branch P it switches OK.
Where did you switch from? Does this branch contain the directory
which is responsible for the later mentioned error message? It has
been created by someone of cours
> -Original Message-
> From: John Maher [mailto:jo...@rotair.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 1:33 PM
> To: Andrew Reedick; Subversion help
> Subject: RE: Switching
>
> Thanks for your reply. I agree it does not make sense. But it is
> reproducible
iginal Message-
From: Andrew Reedick [mailto:andrew.reed...@cbeyond.net]
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2013 10:17 AM
To: John Maher; Subversion help
Subject: RE: Switching
> From: John Maher [mailto:jo...@rotair.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:31 PM
> To: Subversion help
> Subje
> From: John Maher [mailto:jo...@rotair.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2013 1:31 PM
> To: Subversion help
> Subject: Switching
>
> Hello,
>
> I want to thank all who have been helpful. I have gotten my test project to
> merge branches successfully. Now I am trying it on our production code an
71 matches
Mail list logo
