> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 01:08:28PM +1300, Talden wrote: > > >> Was there a reason that 'svn relocate' was designed to not just > > >> switch the containing working copy when you're in a sub-folder of it? > > > > > > See http://svn.haxx.se/users/archive-2011-10/0134.shtml > > > > That seems a different question. It's asking why they can no longer > > switch just part of the working copy and it's related to the same > > reason you can't copy part of a working tree and still use that as a > > working-tree. The control directories have all been centralised at the top > of the tree and no 'detach' > > feature has been provided. > > Partial relocation would effectively be detachment without actually > > moving the content. > > > > We don't need that (clearly I'm asking for the opposite of that). All > > server interactions (update, blame, checkout, list, log, commit > > (though that's redundant in this discussion), ...) are dramatically > > faster against our mirror (our master repository is located in another > > hemisphere in a deep dungeon at the far end of a communications system > > Mr A G Bell would have been embarrassed by - but then the performance > > is about normal for people used to accessing overseas resources from > > New Zealand). Switching between mirror and master is a highly useful and > regularly operation. > > > > Since 'relocate' is a new command, does not allow for detaching a > > sub-folder in the working-tree and likely will not be used for that in > > the future, why doesn't it just switch the entire working copy if > > you're currently in one (especially when you're nested 10-15 folders > > deep) and don't specify a path? > > > > Obviously versions < 1.7 required you to specify the root too (ala svn > > switch - > > -relocate) but hey, this is a new command. What gives. > > > > I'm a bit annoyed at myself actually. I've been ill on and off for > > some months and really should have looked into this as soon as useful > > binaries were being made available (thank-you TortoiseSvn for all of > > those handy pre-beta builds I played with). Unfortunately, and > > totally by accident, the testing I did do had me switching while at the WC > root. > > > > Still I am curious that effort was made to put an informative error > > message in when it seems it could have been avoided (or used only when > > paths were supplied that weren't WC roots - though would it have hurt > > to just switch their roots too). > > My assumption is that since in 1.6 you WERE able to switch a non-root folder > to another path and in 1.7 it automatically fell back to switching the root > the > user would expect that the folder only was switched and have issues later > on. So, in 1.7 it tells you if you are switching a non-root path that you > can't do > that and switch the root path. Make sense? > > BOb
Everywhere I wrote switch above you can also read as RELOCATE. BOb
