On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 04:16:49PM -0500, Les Mikesell claimed: <snip> >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 delete it yourself. Pick one. If it really is <snip>
Why must svn delete the directory in order to create it? Reading this thread it seems to me that the core of the issue is that svn switch is not symmetrical when dealing with directories. When switching away from a branch with an extra directory which contains unversioned files, svn leaves the directory. However, when switching back to the branch with the extra directory it requires that no such directory already exist, even if none of the incoming files have conflicting unversioned twins. 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 directory has nicely compartmentalized units of content which can be handled in a smarter way. > >-- > Les Mikesell > lesmikes...@gmail.com -- Travis
pgp6IIptVYTgI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
