Re: update vs status, where should local mods be displayed?

Joe Orton <joe@manyfish.co.uk> writes:

> I don't understand why people want to overload the "status" command with
> doing updatey things. "status" should show me the status of the WC - end
> of story. If you want some kind of "will an update change my WC"
> command, add a --dry-run to "update", like make has, or something.

You don't think a "status report" on your working copy should tell you
what's out of date? CVS's status report certainly does, and I don't
think that's a misfeature.

Taken from our spec:

  Given this information, by talking to the repository, Subversion can
  tell which of the following four states a file is in:

  {Unchanged, and current.} [...]

  {Locally changed, and current}. [...]

  {Unchanged, and out-of-date}. [...]

  {Locally changed, and out-of-date}. [...]

You really believe that 'svn status' should ignore this 2x2 matrix? I
mean, I've always assumed that to ask about the 'status' of a file
means to get one of the four answers above. I'd be really shocked if
we decided to change this definition of "status".

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:41 2006