On Sat, Apr 23, 2005 at 12:57:34PM +0200, Branko ?ibej wrote:
> Greg Hudson wrote:
> >Second, we generally don't have a good idea of why a file was copied.
> >It could be for a rename, it could be to create a branch, it could be
> >because the original was a template.
> Which is exactly the reason why I've been saying that we need "svn
> branch". "svn copy" simply does not have the same semantics. Likewise,
> "svn rename" doesn't (yet) behave correctly.
> I'd like to see the day when copy means copy, branch means branch, and
> rename means rename.
I just wanted to second that. It is very important that the svn command
indicates intended "merge tracking behavior", which essentially seems to
be some meta-information/property of the form "track file@peg".
"svn cp" should not set this property, whereas "svn branch" and
"svn rename" should.
Wrt the use cases of splitting a big file into two (mentioned in this
thread?) it might be convenient to also introduce "svn split" which
is essentially equivalent to "svn branch" but it indicates that it's not
intended to merge this split/branch back into the original.