* Scott Palmer -- Friday 03 June 2005 23:12:
> On Jun 3, 2005, at 3:48 PM, Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > Updating
> > does already walk the tree and could easily output a line for
> > locally changed
> > files without extra penalty. I guess there's some ideological
> > reason for this
> > omission.
>
> Update pulls in changes from the repository... Why would it report
> anything about your local edits?
Because "update" walks the file tree and checks for changes already.
Why would it *not* show local modifications to the user? "svn up" is
about syncing, and these messages would give a better summary of the syncing
result: identical to the files in the repository, or changed? Differences
*do* matter. And running "cvs status" takes again as much time as updating.
Why would I want to spend several minutes again on a big dir to get the
"status", when "cvs up" just did the same work (but refused to share). Well,
and then: cvs does it, and people are used to it. It could be output with
"svn up -v" only, so that the purist don't go blind.
This topic doesn't occur in this tree for nothing: I brought it up because
it would have saved me a lot of time. Anyway, forget it. Thanks for helping
to solve that other problem. Bye & EOT (as far as I'm concerned).
m.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Jun 3 23:36:15 2005