On Sunday 27 February 2005 15:02, kfogel@collab.net wrote:
> John Szakmeister <john@szakmeister.net> writes:
> > r13151 made the export code stop walking the working copy area, and
> > start using the administrative information instead to do the export.
> > With that, we can no error out on targets that are either
> > unversioned, or don't exist (whereas we just silently skipped over
> > them before). My question to the community is should we do that?
> > Right now, if you try export a bogus directory (i.e., 'svn export
> > /path/to/wc/bogus-dir'), it simply comes back and says it was
> > successful. I think it should return an error ('bogus-dir' is
> > unversioned or doesn't exist). I believe this would be a change to
> > the way the command line tool works, so I held back making that
> > change until we reached a consensus about whether or not it was a
> > 'bug' that needed to be fixed.
>
> IMHO, we can consider it a bug when we fail to error on an explicitly
> named target that we cannot meaningfully process. So your proposed
> change (to return an error saying that bogus-dir is unversioned or
> doesn't exist) seems right, and doesn't raise any compatibility
> concerns in my mind at least.
Thanks. I've got patches in my working copy for this, and I'm putting
together a couple of test for these conditions as well. I hope to have
them committed by tomorrow night.
Here's another thought. What if a file or directory is missing? In both
cases (before my fix and after it), we'd skip right over a missing
directory or file. It seems to me that if the idea is to export a tree,
then we should probably error out when part of the tree is unknowingly
absent. Any thoughts about that?
-John
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Mon Feb 28 12:09:26 2005