[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: multiple merge notifications

From: Daniel Rall <dlr_at_collab.net>
Date: 2007-05-15 03:41:05 CEST

On Mon, 14 May 2007, Eric Gillespie wrote:

> Daniel Rall <dlr@collab.net> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 11 May 2007, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> >
> > > >I mostly like this format. What is path_local with the implicit
> > > >. (e.g. 'svn merge -r5:8 URL')? Is it "" or "."? And maybe
> > > >"into" instead of "to".
> > >=20
> > > It says:
> > >=20
> > > $ svn merge file:///Users/sussman/scratch/mergerepos/branch
> > > --- Merging revision 4 to '.':
> > > U zcpu.py
> > > --- Merging revisions 6-7 to '.':
> > > U zstring.py
> >
> > Should we expand '.' to the full path?
>
> I say no; we don't print the absolute path on the subsequent file
> lines on any command like this. Now, if you *give* an absolute
> path rather than the implicit ., it should:
>
> $ svn merge file:///Users/sussman/scratch/mergerepos/branch /tmp/wc
> --- Merging revision 4 to '.':
> U /tmp/wczcpu.py
> --- Merging revisions 6-7 to '.':
> U /tmp/wczstring.py
>
> Interesting, svn merge output is inconsistent today. 'svn up
> absolute path' prints the absolute paths, but svn merge only
> prints the relative paths. You can tell how often i use absolute
> paths :).
>
> One of the things p4 gets wrong is spewing absolute paths at me
> all the time, making an unreadable mess of the output. Let's not
> go down that road.

Sounds good to me.

- Dan

  • application/pgp-signature attachment: stored
Received on Tue May 15 03:43:03 2007

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.