Re: new bite-sized task, issue #598

Joseph Dane <jdane@studio3511.com> writes:

> ya, I considered that. but what if we're given a list of files to
> stat, and only one is bogus?

That's a good point. Of course, given a list of files (say, `svn st foo.c
bar.c baz.c'), we'll know that bar.c doesn't exist when the output
we receive looks like:

   _ foo.c
   _ baz.c

Right?

> the whole point of the issue, as I construed it, was that svn was
> currently printing nothing for files that don't exist, and that that
> was wrong.

No, the issue is that svn is printing " filename" for files
that don't exist (quite different than printing nothing).

> could there be another status character used for non-existant files?

What if we simply overloaded the '?' to mean "any file not under
version control in the working copy." I mean, this is a *Subversion*
status message, yeilding information with respect to Subversion
working copies -- Subversion doesn't care if a non-versioned file
exists or doesn't exist on disk. Out of [the entries file], out of
mind.

> (*) is it OK to use CVS behavior as a baseline? is this considered
> poor taste?

Nah. I mean, we're trying to write a replacement for CVS, so we
should always keep somewhere in the back of our minds what kinds of
behaviors CVS has. It's just that, as a new project with no
established history of our own, we have the luxury of revisiting those
behaviors and determining whether or not we think they are Good ones.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat Oct 21 14:36:55 2006