[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: svn commit: rev 1895 - trunk/subversion/clients/cmdline trunk/subversion/tests/clients/cmdline/svntest

From: Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk>
Date: 2002-05-08 02:25:19 CEST

Nuutti Kotivuori <naked@iki.fi> writes:

> 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.

OK, I think I now understand what you (think you) want :-)

I disagree fundamentally with your method, I do not think that running
'svn up' to get status information is a good idea. The 'svn up'
command will retrieve and merge changes, that should not be a "side
effect" of obtaining status information.

There is no reason why 'svn st -u' could not provide the information
you want. As it processes each item it could monitor the revision. At
the end of the run, if all the encountered revisions were the same
that revision is compared against HEAD and printed if different. If
the working copy is not a uniform revision we could print some
out-of-date marker.

Then, assuming we fix the performance problem, 'svn st -u' would do
what you want.

-- 
Philip
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed May 8 02:26:15 2002

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.