Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> Daniel Shahaf wrote on Mon, May 16, 2011 at 15:36:25 +0200:
> > [[[
> > % wc-format.py
> > .: 11
>
> It said '28' originally.
>
> > % svn --version -q
> > 1.5.1
> > % svn st -q
When I try with 1.5.9 and 1.6.16, they say "svn: warning: '.' is not a
working copy" which is different but is still misleading.
> > % echo 11 > .svn/format
> > % echo 11 > .svn/entries
> > % svn st -q
> > svn: This client is too old to work with working copy '.'. You need
> > to get a newer Subversion client, or to downgrade this working copy.
> > See http://subversion.tigris.org/faq.html#working-copy-format-change
The URL is now
<http://subversion.apache.org/faq.html#working-copy-format-change> and
we should update the FAQ answer given there.
> > for details.
> > zsh: exit 1 svn st -q
> > %
> > ]]]
> >
> > So, RFC:
> >
> > * wc-ng working copies shall contain an "entries" file (and/or
> > a "format" file) containing the text "11\n", inside all .svn
> > folders they have (if any).
Should be SVN_WC__VERSION (curently 28), not 11.
When I try with just a 'format' file it doesn't work. It has to have
the 'entries' file (as well or instead) to produce the useful
diagnostic.
This only helps when the target of "svn st" is the WC root folder
(except in some cases it works for an immediate child of the root).
Also I would guess there are some other tools (such as Subversion
plug-ins for IDEs) that would give a more helpful diagnostic if they
find a WC version number there. I wonder if such tools would
Given all that, and despite only working for the WC root, I think that
is a useful enough result to be worth doing. I can't think of any
practical objection to having these one or two extra files per WC if it
helps smooth the transition for users.
- Julian
Received on 2011-05-16 16:50:25 CEST