John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> writes:
> I understand the fact that we don't know what revision the directory
> was at. I guess my issue is that we're making an assumption
> here... and it's even stated by the status function (Status against
> revision: 2). In this case, we know for a fact that A/D/H/psi
> doesn't exist in the WC because A/D/H doesn't. I find it a bit
> disturbing that 'svn st -u' in some way indicating that it is in our
> working copy (because it isn't being flagged as missing).
Hm. I guess I can see the concern, but besides that fact that this
thread has now gone beyond the informative and moved on into the
nit-picky, I say we just trust our users to be smart enough to realize
that if a directory is missing from disk, its children are also not
present.
> > "Missing" means "I *know* I'm supposed to have this in my working
> > copy, but for some reason I don't." psi doesn't meet the criteria
> > here, because we *don't* know that we're supposed to have it -- we
> > have absolutely no client-side record of it ever existing.
>
> Again, we've made an assumption, that we're taking the status
> against rev 2.
Um. No.
We've made the declaration that running '-u' *means* we are running
status again HEAD. Who needs to assume?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Oct 9 23:23:57 2003