Re: svn status proposal

On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 02:56:33PM -0500, Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> RADICS Peter <mitch@lbcons.net> writes:
>
> > hm.. don't we get notified of files present in the repo, but not in our
> > working copy? (Added) I think that would be necessary if we want to use
> > svn st -u to find out what would happen with an update.
>
> Aha! Yet another dimension to argue about!
>
> Really, this debate centers on whether you think 'svn status' should
> truly show you *everything* that would happen with an update, or
> whether -what you have- is out of date.
>
> Karl was saying earlier: the use case is finding out which of your
> -existing- files is going to be patched; people want to know where to
> expect merges or conflicts. Thus, you only want to know about things
> you have -- not (A)dded items on the server.
>

Well, in my opinion I ask for status of my working copy as a whole, not
just the files I happen to have. but whatever the decision on this one,
let's not introduce a switch to toggle between the two behaviours. I can
live with whatever people agree upon, I'm just +1 on (A)dded files :)

cheers,
mitch

-- 
// RADICS Peter <mitch_at_lbcons.net> (http://lbcons.net)
//
// "If human beings don't keep exercising their lips, 
//  their brains start working." -- Ford Prefect
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org