Would there be any reason not to make svn update do the check
to see if it should be done then print a nice error message to that
effect. Lets developers find bugs, helps the user figure out what is
going on. When you decide to lean more towards the user modify that
from print to execute cleanup...
Kirby
Ben Collins-Sussman wrote:
> "Jonathan Leffler" <jleffler@us.ibm.com> writes:
>
>
>>OK - svn cleanup did the trick. The residual question is "should I
>>have had to do that", to which I don't know the answer but it
>>doesn't feel quite right if that is necessary just because of an
>>interrupt.
>
>
> Yes, that's a good philosophical question. :-)
>
> In theory, 'svn up' could start out by running 'svn cleanup'
> internally... searching for any locks or logs, just like a journaling
> filesystem does when you boot it up.
>
> I think the reason we're not doing that (yet) is that we want to know
> when a working copy gets into a cleanuppable state. In other words,
> it helps developers find bugs, at a convenience cost to users. Maybe
> we should change this policy at some point...
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Jun 19 22:24:57 2002