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
12 matches
Mail list logo
