Mailing-List: contact users-help@subversion.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lesmikesell@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.212.46 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <52178B18.9050007@gmx.us>
References: <910250F21FAA2A4E8F72DD21EA7807660906148C@VMJudi.corp.rotair.com>
	<910250F21FAA2A4E8F72DD21EA78076609065B00@VMJudi.corp.rotair.com>
	<1B05D8F50421E24799AE93B03CC284BE01CAFDB285@CRPMBX01.corp.cbeyond.net>
	<910250F21FAA2A4E8F72DD21EA78076609066DB2@VMJudi.corp.rotair.com>
	<CAOAgVpwr_8BPxjTDkV4BbgST4RuDP9Ek5+rWusqkCAGWcSLD-Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<910250F21FAA2A4E8F72DD21EA7807660906CE46@VMJudi.corp.rotair.com>
	<1803569830.20130822182126@am-soft.de>
	<910250F21FAA2A4E8F72DD21EA7807660906CE8C@VMJudi.corp.rotair.com>
	<CAB84uBUkwB=Htu+0bkU12Jp6HCy_iXxiyePxsH98_b=4nKrmcg@mail.gmail.com>
	<910250F21FAA2A4E8F72DD21EA7807660906CF0C@VMJudi.corp.rotair.com>
	<1B05D8F50421E24799AE93B03CC284BE01CB235198@CRPMBX01.corp.cbeyond.net>
	<910250F21FAA2A4E8F72DD21EA7807660906CF5A@VMJudi.corp.rotair.com>
	<5216589C.1030308@gmx.us>
	<910250F21FAA2A4E8F72DD21EA7807660906CFD5@VMJudi.corp.rotair.com>
	<521665CF.7050807@gmx.us>
	<81E45292CF3BC5478E88DF55E216AD2F03B46E5E@FLONIDANPOST.flonidan.net>
	<52178B18.9050007@gmx.us>
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 12:34:18 -0500
Message-ID: 
 <CAOAgVpzE3cGpyF5QJ0L2FyKiRHTgyTP2z-RCGrDpm0-wAt2D6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Switching
From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell@gmail.com>
To: Edwin Castro <0ptikGhost@gmx.us>
Cc: Subversion <users@subversion.apache.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Edwin Castro <0ptikGhost@gmx.us> wrote:
>>>
>> I don't buy the argument about different histories: the pre-existing
>> directory doesn't have a subversion history, so from svn's point of
>> view there is no conflict.  What are the real, practical problems that
>> you know of or foresee with svn swich --force?
>>
>
> When objects do not have history, then subversion is in the position to
> try to decide what to do with content that already exists on the
> filesystem.

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 instance,
leaving any unversioned local files that happen to be there alone.
Other than maybe the chance that you'd accidentally commit them later,
but that is no different than if you had put the local files in after
the switch.  Am I missing something?   Is there a way to --force that
without also potentially --force'ing files that conflict to be
clobbered?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell@gmail.com