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. >> If a previously versioned directory is left behind unversioned, that >> means there are unversioned (aka obstructing) nodes within the >> directory, such as files created during a build. Those files could >> not have been created by svn. >> >> 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 should interactively offer a set of >> reasonable courses of action, such as removing the unversioned nodes, >> or moving them to a special lost+found area, or something else that >> allows incoming versioned nodes to be created in their place. > That's just overcomplicating the issue. This doesn't even need to > become a tree conflict. There seems to be confusion about what is > actually needed to solve the OP's original problem and to make svn > switch symmetric. I've attached a simple patch which solves the issue in > the method that I proposed.
I already explained at length why this solution is absolutely the wrong approach. It solves a small subset of cases at the cost of causing serious grief to users in the majority of cases. Let's please just stop discussing this approach because it is not viable. -- Brane -- Branko Čibej | Director of Subversion WANdisco // Non-Stop Data e. br...@wandisco.com
