Re: new bite-sized task, issue #598

cmpilato@collab.net writes:

> Joseph Dane <jdane@studio3511.com> writes:
>
> > ya, I considered that. but what if we're given a list of files to
> > stat, and only one is bogus?
>
> That's a good point. Of course, given a list of files (say, `svn st foo.c
> bar.c baz.c'), we'll know that bar.c doesn't exist when the output
> we receive looks like:
>
> _ foo.c
> _ baz.c
>
> Right?

maybe. another way of looking at it is that svn would be ignoring an
explicit request from the user. I asked for the status of 'bar.c',
and I want some status, dammit!

> What if we simply overloaded the '?' to mean "any file not under
> version control in the working copy." I mean, this is a *Subversion*
> status message, yeilding information with respect to Subversion
> working copies -- Subversion doesn't care if a non-versioned file
> exists or doesn't exist on disk. Out of [the entries file], out of
> mind.

I could live with that, although we'd still be losing some
information. I'll generate a new patch using this approach.

-- 
joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org