On Apr 8, 2005, at 2:41 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
> It would be best if you could wait a day or so first, to see if anyone
> refutes this or is likely to fix this quickly. (They might, as the
> locking code is fresh in some people's minds.) But if there is no
> such response, or if you can't conveniently wait, yes please file an
> issue.
I can hang fire for a couple of days.
>>> Hmm... svn is not very good at responding to files that do not exist
>>> (neither on disk nor in version control) - it tends to ignore them
>>> as if you hadn't mentioned them. I think that's what's happening
>>> here ("OK, I've removed any files you asked me to - which wasn't any
>>> at all"). Likewise "svn up foo" and "svn st foo" silently succeed
>>> even if "foo" is nonexistent and unknown. I regard those all as
>>> bugs. I don't know if they are all filed in the issue tracker.
>> Should I file a bug against the rm case in the issue tracker, or not?
>
> Yes, please. But don't assume that the resolution will necessarily be
> that the operation should fail. There was recently a very similar
> comment on the behaviour of "propdel" silently succeeding on a
> non-existent property, and the same three options apply:
>
> 1. Silently skip the item (as we do now), and continue successfully.
> Document the behaviour as intentional. Currently:
> svn rm
> svn status
> svn update
>
> 2. Print a warning, skip the item, and continue successfully.
> Currently:
> svn revert
>
> 3. Print an error and fail immediately. Currently:
> all other commands
Understood. Clarification may be all that is needed for the fix, but
IMO 2 would be the most user friendly.
<http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2269>
Thanks,
Jim
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Fri Apr 8 21:05:13 2005