Re: Problem in switch --depth with reloacte
Mark Phippard wrote:
> On 8/7/07, C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Mark Phippard wrote:
>>> On 8/7/07, Senthil Kumaran S <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> I am attaching a shell script along with this mail which helps in
>>>> explaining a scenario which fails when --depth is used along with switch
>>>> If you look at the two results at the end of the script run, we can see
>>>> that both files and immediates are doing the same job. IMHO if we do a
>>>> --depth files then we should not get the url changed for the "."
>>>> directory. If both immediates and files are doing the same job in case
>>>> of switch --relocate then they must be unified or we need to document
>>>> that in the help message.
>>> I wonder a bit whether we ought to even support this combination. In
>>> 1.4, did we support a --non-recursive option with --relocate? It
>>> seems like an odd use-case.
>> It's a ridiculous use-case which points (once again) to the silliness of
>> piggybacking our relocation logic onto the 'svn switch' subcommand. But
>> what's done is done, right?
> We can't just disallow certain option combinations?
Sure we can. The command-line client blocks --no-auto-props + --auto-props
with an error about them being mutually exclusive.
C. Michael Pilato <email@example.com>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on Tue Aug 7 16:19:12 2007
This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev