On Sat, 3 May 2003 17:15:44 +0200, Benjamin Pflugmann
<benjamin-svn-dev@pflugmann.de> wrote:
> On Fri 2003-05-02 at 23:51:38 +0000, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>> On Fri, 2 May 2003 14:15:15 +0200, Benjamin Pflugmann wrote:
>> > On Fri 2003-05-02 at 01:19:10 -0400, Faheem Mitha wrote:
>> > > On 1 May 2003 cmpilato@collab.net wrote:
>> > > > Or, if the community thinks it useful, we could make 'svn propedit -R'
>> > > > simply *not* populate the editor with anything, and instead skip
>> > > > straight to storing your new property recursively. I'd wouldn't mind
>> > > > that so much (as long as it was properly documented).
>> > >
>> > > Yes, I'd like that. Actually, that is what I assumed it did when I tried
>> > > to pass the -R switch.
>> >
>> > Well, technically, that is setting, not editing the properties. IMHO,
>> > there is no reason to overload propedit with functionality that is
>> > already properly handled by propset.
>>
>> Er, doesn't propedit set the properties, after editing them?
>
> Well, maybe bad wording as a non-native speaker. What I wanted to
> emphasize is that there is already a command that discards any
> old value and simply assign the new, namely propset.
>
> If you consider propset and propdel, the only justification for
> propedit to exist is to modify the existing value, IMHO.[1]
> Mike's suggestion for -R eliminates precisely that behaviour (it
> does not load the existing value anymore), so why use propset
> instead of propedit to begin with?
>
> I hope that cleared up what I meant.
Yes, I agree with you that propedit should modify existing values. See
my comments in other posts. Thanks.
Faheem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Sat May 3 23:06:39 2003