On Sat, Dec 03, 2016 at 06:42:11PM +0100, Olaf van der Spek wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:19 PM, Stefan Sperling <s...@elego.de> wrote: > >> >> For directories it seems like a no-brainer to avoid the conflict. > >> > > >> > Indeed, adding a resolver option for this should not be very difficult. > >> > >> I'd opt for not having a conflict in the first place. > > > > There is a reason the non-conflict behaviour requires the --force option. > > It is perfectly fine for Subversion to be conservative if the alternative > > is to litter all over other people's data. > > > > And this conflict is not very difficult to solve: > > > > When a directory DIR has an "local dir unversioned, incoming dir add upon > > update" conflict, and you want to keep DIR as it was and do not want SVN > > to touch it after all, all you need to do is move DIR out of the working > > copy (with standard operating system tools) to somewhere else and it will > > have been preserved as it was before SVN got involved. > > Then run 'svn revert -R DIR' to put the versioned content in place. > > Note that this solution is not trivial to achieve after update --force > > which might modify unversioned files, requiring the user to edit files > > in DIR back into their original state. This is why --force is not the > > default. > > Are you sure? > In my experience --force does NOT overwrite existing files. > Not overwriting files is safe and exactly what I want.
I am quite sure: $ cd trunk-wc $ ls alpha beta epsilon/ gamma/ $ cat epsilon/zeta zeta $ cd .. $ rm -rf trunk-wc $ mkdir -p trunk-wc/epsilon $ echo zzz > trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta $ svn co --force file:///tmp/svn-sandbox/repos/trunk trunk-wc A trunk-wc/alpha A trunk-wc/beta E trunk-wc/epsilon E trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta A trunk-wc/gamma A trunk-wc/gamma/delta Checked out revision 2. $ svn diff trunk-wc Index: trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta =================================================================== --- trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta (revision 2) +++ trunk-wc/epsilon/zeta (working copy) @@ -1 +1 @@ -zeta +zzz > > and forgot to use --force. > > I wasn't aware of --force before asking this question. It's not asking any questions. > --force is usually used for dangerous stuff as well. --force is a historcal name everyone is rather unhappy with. No option named --force should exist (what is being forced?). But it does, so now we cannot remove it without breaking backwards compatibility.
