Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi> writes:
> Actually I must disagree a bit on the way this is done.
>
> The thing that is the important distinction, in my opinion, is that
> did the revision number change or not. It's confusing to see "Updated
> to revision N" when the revision was the same as before - but it's not
> as confusing to see that when the revision _was_ changed, just that
> there were no changes.
>
> So I vote for either three messages - update with changes, update
> without changes and update but no new revision - or that the different
> messages comes only in the case where there is no new revision.
I don't agree, quite.
The important thing is that the user know what revision they are at
after the update. Given that no actual changes were received, why is
it useful to know whether the working copy was at some other
revision(s) *before* the update? That revision mixture is gone
forever, the update is done, so who cares? The important thing is
that you are now at revision X.
By saying "At" instead of "Updating" in that circumstance, the output
is deliberately uninformative on the question of whether any revisions
changed to get to X. This is more accurate than the old output;
instead of claiming that something changed when maybe nothing changed,
it just doesn't say either way.
If you want the output to distinguish between all three possibilities,
go for it. Personally, it doesn't seem that important to me, so I'm
not planning to write the patch myself...
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue May 7 23:14:27 2002