Re: [BUG]: "svn: Two top-level reports with no target"

On Oct 4, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Greg Hudson wrote:
>
> (1) What is the desired behavior here? If you were to "svn up foo"
> from the parent, you'd either get a no-op update or an obstructed
> update, depending on whether foo exists in the repository's head.

If the schedule-add directory is either the explicit anchor or explicit
target of an update, then I think we should print an error. It's
nonsensical to try to update something that only exists in a working
copy.

If a schedule-add directory is encountered while sending a recursive
report, then it should be skipped over, I think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Wed Oct 6 17:32:16 2004