Stefan Sperling wrote on Thu, 26 Mar 2020 10:45 +0100: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 01:10:25AM +0300, Anton Shepelev wrote: > > Daniel Shahaf: > > > However, I can also see circumstances in which this smartness > > > could be counter-productive: > > > > > > 1. In repository restructurings, such as running «svn merge» in a > > > working copy of ^/thebarproject/trunk after that project had been > > > renamed from ^/thefooproject/trunk. Under the proposal, that > > > would attempt to merge from ^/thefooproject/trunk, and it's not > > > clear to me that that's a more useful behaviour than just > > > throwing a usage error. > > > > You say the project was renamed, which means that `svn cp' was not > > involved. > > Renames are modelled as copy+delete in SVN.
They are, but we can behave differently depending on whether or not the adding-with-history was accompanied by a deletion in the same revision. That is, if cwd is a working copy of foo, we'd behave differently in the case that foo had been created by «svnmucc cp HEAD bar foo» and in the case that foo had been created by «svnmucc cp HEAD bar foo rm bar».
