Re: unversioned files (was: Re: Rev 362 libmod_dav_sn.so: undefined symbol: svn_repos_get_logs)

Greg Stein <gstein@lyra.org> writes:
> > That's not to say "svn st" should or shouldn't show unversioned files;
> > merely mean to show why this one reason to favor showing them isn't a
> > very good reason (as past history with CVS demonstrates).
>
> *Nothing* today will show unversioned files except for "svn update". That
> seems incredibly lame. I couldn't figure out what files that I needed to add
> to source control. My answer? I happened to know they were all *.i, so I ran
> "svn st *.i". Things that weren't versioned gave me an error. I added one,
> and reran the command again. Added the second...
>
> Bogus.

Yes, I agree. To summarize: one reason it would be useful for "svn
st" to show unversioned files would be so that one could use it on
purpose to find out what needs to be added -- habituation wouldn't be
a problem, because the user would already have decided to pay
attention.

I ran into the same situation today, and was wishing I could use st to
list my unversioned files.

> I don't understand your comment about "lots of '?' files". I never have lots
> of ? files in my WC. What's wrong with your WC? And I don't like the
> heuristics answer. That is too "magical".

There's nothing "wrong" with my WC, and I have lots of '?' files in
it. I suppose your desk is tidier than mine, too. :-)

What is "the heuristics answer"?

> However this works, we have a serious use case problem. "What files have I
> written, which need to be added?" There is no way to answer that right now.

+1 on "svn st" showing unversioned files. I'll even make you a deal:
you file the issue, and I'll write the code. :-)

-K

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:47 2006