You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de> on 2008/03/20 23:10:30 UTC
SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Hi there,
i have a little question about the new option to svn checkout --accept...
In relationship with svn merge/svn update i do understand the need of
this option...but with svn checkout i do not understand this....
Or is the intention of this option in relationship with svn checkout to
define the behavior of the working copy for future update/merge operations?
can someone enlighten me a little bit....
Kind regards....
Karl Heinz Marbaise
--
SoftwareEntwicklung Beratung Schulung Tel.: +49 (0) 2405 / 415 893
Dipl.Ing.(FH) Karl Heinz Marbaise ICQ#: 135949029
Hauptstrasse 177 USt.IdNr: DE191347579
52146 Würselen http://www.soebes.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de>.
Hi Eric,
> Yeah, it's a little weird: checkout becomes update when the
> target path exists as the same URL.
> Try it out.
That's the point i didn't thought about...yes of course...
> Checkout and
> update (and others) are the same thing under the hood; only the
> starting point differs.
Thanks for the explanations...
Kind regards
Karl Heinz Marbaise
--
SoftwareEntwicklung Beratung Schulung Tel.: +49 (0) 2405 / 415 893
Dipl.Ing.(FH) Karl Heinz Marbaise ICQ#: 135949029
Hauptstrasse 177 USt.IdNr: DE191347579
52146 Würselen http://www.soebes.de
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 11:25 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> David Glasser wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> "David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>> I'm a little torn; some of my wc-ng ideas include making checkout a
>>>> little specialler.
>>>>
>>>> But even if you're using checkout to restart a checkout, would you
>>>> ever want to use --accept?
>>>
>>> Good point. I'm fine with disallowing --accept for checkout. (And
>>> always better to disallow now and then allow later if we have a reason
>>> to, than vice versa.)
>>
>> For the record, we didn't do this. Is this a problem?
>
> Isn't this, like, a one-line trivial change? Just make it happen. There is
> no meaningful interpretation of 'svn checkout --accept'.
OK, r31396, nominated for backport to 1.5.x.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
David Glasser wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com> wrote:
>> "David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
>>> I'm a little torn; some of my wc-ng ideas include making checkout a
>>> little specialler.
>>>
>>> But even if you're using checkout to restart a checkout, would you
>>> ever want to use --accept?
>> Good point. I'm fine with disallowing --accept for checkout. (And
>> always better to disallow now and then allow later if we have a reason
>> to, than vice versa.)
>
> For the record, we didn't do this. Is this a problem?
Isn't this, like, a one-line trivial change? Just make it happen. There is
no meaningful interpretation of 'svn checkout --accept'.
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:04 PM, Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> "David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
>> I'm a little torn; some of my wc-ng ideas include making checkout a
>> little specialler.
>>
>> But even if you're using checkout to restart a checkout, would you
>> ever want to use --accept?
>
> Good point. I'm fine with disallowing --accept for checkout. (And
> always better to disallow now and then allow later if we have a reason
> to, than vice versa.)
For the record, we didn't do this. Is this a problem?
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
> I'm a little torn; some of my wc-ng ideas include making checkout a
> little specialler.
>
> But even if you're using checkout to restart a checkout, would you
> ever want to use --accept?
Good point. I'm fine with disallowing --accept for checkout. (And
always better to disallow now and then allow later if we have a reason
to, than vice versa.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com> wrote:
> "Ben Collins-Sussman" <su...@red-bean.com> writes:
> > History:
> >
> > * Checkout and update used to be different codepaths. Neither was
> > restartable. Right before launching 1.0, we decided this was a
> > showstopper.
> >
> > * kfogel and I made checkout/update into a single codepath which was
> > inherently restartable. A checkout just creates a working copy with
> > "all items missing", and requests an update.
> >
> > * A side-effect of this change, it turned out that checkouts were
> > restartable by *either* 'co' or 'up'... they both ended up invoking
> > the same codepath. We decided it was nifty cool to be so flexible,
> > and left the side-effect alone.
>
> Well, then my memory is playing tricks on me -- I thought the usage
> decision was older than that. But I believe you.
>
> In any case, do we like the property of "restartable by re-invoking the
> same command" ?
I'm a little torn; some of my wc-ng ideas include making checkout a
little specialler.
But even if you're using checkout to restart a checkout, would you
ever want to use --accept?
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"Ben Collins-Sussman" <su...@red-bean.com> writes:
> History:
>
> * Checkout and update used to be different codepaths. Neither was
> restartable. Right before launching 1.0, we decided this was a
> showstopper.
>
> * kfogel and I made checkout/update into a single codepath which was
> inherently restartable. A checkout just creates a working copy with
> "all items missing", and requests an update.
>
> * A side-effect of this change, it turned out that checkouts were
> restartable by *either* 'co' or 'up'... they both ended up invoking
> the same codepath. We decided it was nifty cool to be so flexible,
> and left the side-effect alone.
Well, then my memory is playing tricks on me -- I thought the usage
decision was older than that. But I believe you.
In any case, do we like the property of "restartable by re-invoking the
same command" ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by Ben Collins-Sussman <su...@red-bean.com>.
History:
* Checkout and update used to be different codepaths. Neither was
restartable. Right before launching 1.0, we decided this was a
showstopper.
* kfogel and I made checkout/update into a single codepath which was
inherently restartable. A checkout just creates a working copy with
"all items missing", and requests an update.
* A side-effect of this change, it turned out that checkouts were
restartable by *either* 'co' or 'up'... they both ended up invoking
the same codepath. We decided it was nifty cool to be so flexible,
and left the side-effect alone.
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 2:00 PM, David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net> wrote:
> I see; Issue #730. Of course, checkout/update were implemented
> differently back then I think; now you can just restart checkouts with
> an update.
>
> --dave
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:28 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> > This was not an oversight, it was a deliberate design decision. I believe
> > the enhancement issue's summary was something to the effect of "checkouts
> > should be restartable".
> >
> >
> >
> > Chris Rose wrote:
> > > In our nightly builds it's convenient to use checkout as an update as
> > > well; we can choose to blow away our source code and our nightly code
> > > update scripts Just Work(tm) despite the absence of a checked out copy.
> > >
> > > It's not a fundamentally critical feature, to be sure, but it's nice in
> > > this case.
> > >
> > > David Glasser wrote:
> > >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>> "David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
> > >>>
> > >>> > That doesn't mean that the UI has to reflect this implementation. I
> > >>> > don't see why --accept is useful for checkout; I think it should be
> > >>> > removed.
> > >>>
> > >>> The UI already does. Unless you change 'svn checkout URL existing-wc'
> > >>> to error out instead of updating it.
> > >>
> > >> Sure, I think the fact that this works is a bug. checkout and update
> > >> are conceptually different operations, no matter how our current
> > >> wc/client code works. A more structured working copy would treat them
> > >> rather differently. I don't see why we should go out of our way to
> > >> encourage people to use checkout as update, even if it happens to work
> > >> (and I'd be OK with making it be an error).
> > >>
> > >> Is there any useful reason to use "svn checkout URL existing-wc"?
> > >>
> > >> --dave
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
> > CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
I see; Issue #730. Of course, checkout/update were implemented
differently back then I think; now you can just restart checkouts with
an update.
--dave
On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:28 AM, C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net> wrote:
> This was not an oversight, it was a deliberate design decision. I believe
> the enhancement issue's summary was something to the effect of "checkouts
> should be restartable".
>
>
>
> Chris Rose wrote:
> > In our nightly builds it's convenient to use checkout as an update as
> > well; we can choose to blow away our source code and our nightly code
> > update scripts Just Work(tm) despite the absence of a checked out copy.
> >
> > It's not a fundamentally critical feature, to be sure, but it's nice in
> > this case.
> >
> > David Glasser wrote:
> >> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>> "David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
> >>>
> >>> > That doesn't mean that the UI has to reflect this implementation. I
> >>> > don't see why --accept is useful for checkout; I think it should be
> >>> > removed.
> >>>
> >>> The UI already does. Unless you change 'svn checkout URL existing-wc'
> >>> to error out instead of updating it.
> >>
> >> Sure, I think the fact that this works is a bug. checkout and update
> >> are conceptually different operations, no matter how our current
> >> wc/client code works. A more structured working copy would treat them
> >> rather differently. I don't see why we should go out of our way to
> >> encourage people to use checkout as update, even if it happens to work
> >> (and I'd be OK with making it be an error).
> >>
> >> Is there any useful reason to use "svn checkout URL existing-wc"?
> >>
> >> --dave
> >>
> >
>
>
> --
> C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
> CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
>
>
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by "C. Michael Pilato" <cm...@collab.net>.
This was not an oversight, it was a deliberate design decision. I believe
the enhancement issue's summary was something to the effect of "checkouts
should be restartable".
Chris Rose wrote:
> In our nightly builds it's convenient to use checkout as an update as
> well; we can choose to blow away our source code and our nightly code
> update scripts Just Work(tm) despite the absence of a checked out copy.
>
> It's not a fundamentally critical feature, to be sure, but it's nice in
> this case.
>
> David Glasser wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org>
>> wrote:
>>> "David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
>>>
>>> > That doesn't mean that the UI has to reflect this implementation. I
>>> > don't see why --accept is useful for checkout; I think it should be
>>> > removed.
>>>
>>> The UI already does. Unless you change 'svn checkout URL existing-wc'
>>> to error out instead of updating it.
>>
>> Sure, I think the fact that this works is a bug. checkout and update
>> are conceptually different operations, no matter how our current
>> wc/client code works. A more structured working copy would treat them
>> rather differently. I don't see why we should go out of our way to
>> encourage people to use checkout as update, even if it happens to work
>> (and I'd be OK with making it be an error).
>>
>> Is there any useful reason to use "svn checkout URL existing-wc"?
>>
>> --dave
>>
>
--
C. Michael Pilato <cm...@collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by Chris Rose <ch...@messagingdirect.com>.
In our nightly builds it's convenient to use checkout as an update as
well; we can choose to blow away our source code and our nightly code
update scripts Just Work(tm) despite the absence of a checked out copy.
It's not a fundamentally critical feature, to be sure, but it's nice in
this case.
David Glasser wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org> wrote:
>> "David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
>>
>> > That doesn't mean that the UI has to reflect this implementation. I
>> > don't see why --accept is useful for checkout; I think it should be
>> > removed.
>>
>> The UI already does. Unless you change 'svn checkout URL existing-wc'
>> to error out instead of updating it.
>
> Sure, I think the fact that this works is a bug. checkout and update
> are conceptually different operations, no matter how our current
> wc/client code works. A more structured working copy would treat them
> rather differently. I don't see why we should go out of our way to
> encourage people to use checkout as update, even if it happens to work
> (and I'd be OK with making it be an error).
>
> Is there any useful reason to use "svn checkout URL existing-wc"?
>
> --dave
>
--
Chris Rose
Developer Planet Consulting Group
(780) 577-8433
crose@planetci.com
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org>.
"David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
> Sure, I think the fact that this works is a bug. checkout and update
Fair enough.
> Is there any useful reason to use "svn checkout URL existing-wc"?
I don't know; I was merely noting that it works. I've never used
it this way.
--
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@red-bean.com>.
"David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
> Sure, I think the fact that this works is a bug. checkout and update
> are conceptually different operations, no matter how our current
> wc/client code works. A more structured working copy would treat them
> rather differently. I don't see why we should go out of our way to
> encourage people to use checkout as update, even if it happens to work
> (and I'd be OK with making it be an error).
>
> Is there any useful reason to use "svn checkout URL existing-wc"?
The UI reason for it was that if there's an error during checkout (a
giant squid bites through your undersea cable and you lose connection to
the repository temporarily), then you can simply re-run the exact same
command to resume.
I remember finding this fairly convincing at the time it was discussed,
in like 2000 or 2001. Whether that's because people actually said they
found this usage intuitive, or because I'm easily convinced, I'm not
sure.
-Karl
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 2:21 PM, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org> wrote:
> "David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
>
> > That doesn't mean that the UI has to reflect this implementation. I
> > don't see why --accept is useful for checkout; I think it should be
> > removed.
>
> The UI already does. Unless you change 'svn checkout URL existing-wc'
> to error out instead of updating it.
Sure, I think the fact that this works is a bug. checkout and update
are conceptually different operations, no matter how our current
wc/client code works. A more structured working copy would treat them
rather differently. I don't see why we should go out of our way to
encourage people to use checkout as update, even if it happens to work
(and I'd be OK with making it be an error).
Is there any useful reason to use "svn checkout URL existing-wc"?
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org>.
"David Glasser" <gl...@davidglasser.net> writes:
> That doesn't mean that the UI has to reflect this implementation. I
> don't see why --accept is useful for checkout; I think it should be
> removed.
The UI already does. Unless you change 'svn checkout URL existing-wc'
to error out instead of updating it.
--
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by David Glasser <gl...@davidglasser.net>.
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org> wrote:
> Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de> writes:
>
> > In relationship with svn merge/svn update i do understand the need of
> > this option...but with svn checkout i do not understand this....
>
> Yeah, it's a little weird: checkout becomes update when the
> target path exists as the same URL. Try it out. Checkout and
> update (and others) are the same thing under the hood; only the
> starting point differs.
That doesn't mean that the UI has to reflect this implementation. I
don't see why --accept is useful for checkout; I think it should be
removed.
--dave
--
David Glasser | glasser@davidglasser.net | http://www.davidglasser.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: SVN 1.5 - beta1 - svn checkout
Posted by Eric Gillespie <ep...@pretzelnet.org>.
Karl Heinz Marbaise <kh...@gmx.de> writes:
> In relationship with svn merge/svn update i do understand the need of
> this option...but with svn checkout i do not understand this....
Yeah, it's a little weird: checkout becomes update when the
target path exists as the same URL. Try it out. Checkout and
update (and others) are the same thing under the hood; only the
starting point differs.
--
Eric Gillespie <*> epg@pretzelnet.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org