Re: new bite-sized task, issue #598

Karl Fogel <kfogel@newton.ch.collab.net> writes:

> +1 on '?' for existent, but non-versioned, files.
>
> -1 on '?' for non-existent, non-versioned, files (which are the kinds
> of files that brought this thread up in the first place).
>
> IMHO, if the user explicitly invokes "svn st" on a list of filenames
> that includes one or more non-existent, non-versioned files, it's
> acceptable to throw an error, or do something attention-getting.
>
> Remember, shell globbing will never cause this to happen. Shell
> wildcards like "*" only expand to things that actually exist. So this
> situation can only happen if the *user* explicitly types the name of a
> non-existent, non-versioned file.

which makes it even less attractive to ignore the file. which is, I
guess, your point.

so, the remaining question is "should the process of listing statuses
of multiple files stop when a non-existant file is encountered?" I
say that it should not stop, and that svn should continue with the
status reports for the remaining files. if that is acceptable, then
the only remaining issue is the format of the attention-getting
message produced by the non-existant file.

-- 
joe
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org