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

Re: "svn status" handling uncontrolled and non-existant files

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: 2003-02-03 02:42:09 CET

Karl Fogel wrote:
> Julian Foad <julianfoad@btopenworld.com> writes:
>>- Verbose mode and recursive mode both list uncontrolled files, but do
>>not list uncontrolled directories.
> That's certainly questionable, yah.

Oh dear, my error again. It does in fact list them; the directories I
was looking at must have been in the "ignore" list. Sorry for wasting
time there.

>>- When explicitly given the name of an uncontrolled directory, it
>>fails and exits without continuing the report:
> That last one is just an outright bug, considering the effect it has
> when one passes "*" as an argument. Can you file an issue for it?
> You might want to link it with issue #1076, not in a dependency way,
> just in a "these are all in the same domain" sort of way.

OK, done. Issue number 1124.

>>julianfoad@linux:~/src/subversion> svn status blah/blah
>>subversion/libsvn_wc/lock.c:289: (apr_err=155006)
>>svn: Invalid lock
>>svn: lock path is not a directory (blah)
> This behavior is probably okay, because it could never be the result
> of a "*" expansion -- the user has named a file that not only doesn't
> exist, but couldn't exist.

I agree that an error message is OK for this third case, and exactly
what the error message says is not so important. This corner case is
similar to that described by Philip Martin in issue 1076 as:

> Target does not exist and is not versioned:
> $ svn status foo
> ../svn/subversion/libsvn_subr/io.c:1802: (apr_err=2)
> svn: No such file or directory
> svn: svn_io_file_open: can't open `.svn/entries'

In both of these cases, the directory containing the requested item is
not itself under version control. (In a controlled directory, a target
that does not exist and is not versioned is handled correctly with a "?".)

I cannot see how to add comments to an issue; I would have put the above
into issue 1076 and also the following:

I don't think a main status flag of "I" would be correct for ignored
items. "Ignored" is orthogonal meta-data; the status of an ignored item
can still be " ", "A", "D", "M", etc. just as for a non-ignored item.

I feel that explicit arguments should be treated the same way as items
found by the implicit expansion of a directory. In particular, that
they should not be displayed at all if they match the "ignored" list.

- Julian

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Feb 3 02:40:32 2003

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