On Jan 5, 2005, at 7:30 PM, Philip Martin wrote:
> "Max Bowsher" <maxb@ukf.net> writes:
>
>> Philip Martin wrote:
>>> "Peter N. Lundblad" <peter@famlundblad.se> writes:
>>>
>>>> I don't want to use the third column. One possibility is to write
>>>> something on the next line like:
>>>> U path
>>>> Lock remvoed.
>>>> path2
>>>> Lock removed.
>>>
>>> It's inconvenient for a script to have to parse multiple lines like
>>> that. How about
>>>
>>> U path
>>> B path
>>> U path2
>>> S path2
>>
>> But, lock-changes are not text-changes. What if there are both to
>> report?
>
> My example above reports both.
>
>> I think we *need* to add another column.
>
> I think we have to add a column or a line.
>
>> Yes, it will break some scripts, but really, *anything* we change will
>> break some scripts, and we absolutely *must* show lock changes in
>> update output.
>
> Some scripts will break if we add a column, some will break if we add
> a line, but if we add a line then only people using locks will see
> anything change.
>
Well, here's an argument for adding a new column (instead of a new
line): I think it's much more readable to have exactly one line per
path. Right now, we only violate that rule when there's a replacement:
D foo.c
A foo.c
...and there's an open issue for that anyway, claiming that it should
print 'R' instead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jan 6 03:09:55 2005