[svn.haxx.se] · SVN Dev · SVN Users · SVN Org · TSVN Dev · TSVN Users · Subclipse Dev · Subclipse Users · this month's index

Re: [PATCH] make svnmucc consistently overwrite copy targets

From: <kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 12:44:11 -0600

Philip Martin <philip_at_codematters.co.uk> wrote on 11/07/2008 11:37:39 AM:
> kmradke_at_rockwellcollins.com writes:
> > This is PRECISELY a reason why I want/need a --force flag!!!!!
> Are you confusing svn and svnmucc? I have never objected to you
> adding a force flag to svn.

If it is useful for svn, why wouldn't it be useful for svnmucc? Is
it better to have an "overwrite" command that doesn't mimic any
svn functionality? Keeping functionality similar is a good goal...

> > Create it if needed, overwrite it if it exists. The svn cp
> > functionality is modelled around the unix cp command which would
> > do the exact same thing in your scenario above...
> >
> > Adding support for this doesn't make any "broken" behavior any worse
> > (the user said to overwrite) and it makes the "check and overwrite"
> > operation atomic which is impossible from any wrapper script.
> >
> > Do you have a better proposal for "fixing" cp functionality?
> >
> > Complaints that it is broken in other ways do not help and should
> > not be a valid reason to reject simple beneficial behavior
> You keep saying the same things, so you will get the same answer. I
> don't like the idea of adding a force flag to svnmucc, I'd prefer an
> overwrite action.


You were originally not very "positive" about even adding an
overwrite option. And I quote:

== > Options I see:
== > 1) Add a --force (or maybe --overwrite) option
== > 2) Add a new action such as CPO, or CPF, OV, OVER
== >
== > Would patches for either of these be better received?
== > And if so, is #1 or #2 preferred?
== I don't really like either of those, although 2 is better than 1.

Considering both were "un-liked", I didn't assume a patch
would be acceptable for them either.

Later you said, and I quote:

== If we do support overwrite, and I'm not convinced we should, then my
== preferred solution would be a new overwrite action that worked for
== both files and directories over all RA layers, combined with an extra
== check to catch the current directory copy/overwrite bug.

Still doesn't seem like ANY patch would be acceptable...

Can you see my frustration?


> If you want to propose a force flag for svn, rather than svnmucc, then
> do the usual things: read the old discussions, start a new discussion,
> write a patch, etc. There is at least one proposed patch in the issue
> tracker.

That was my original option, until I found that svnmucc was
almost what I needed (due to a dav bug, I guess.) I also figured
a fairly simple patch to a contrib utility would have a much better
chance making it into the 1.6 cutoff.

I still plan on creating 2 new patches:

1) Make svnmucc check the cp target and fail if it exists
   to workaround the current dav bug.
2) Make svnmucc have a new action named OV which will essentially
   be a "copy and overwrite if it exists"

#1 is a very slight change to what I previously submitted, but I
think you agree with and prefer that behavior.

Please speakup now if you have any blocking objections to #2 so
I don't waste more of my time.

Kevin R.
Received on 2008-11-07 19:44:28 CET

This is an archived mail posted to the Subversion Dev mailing list.

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.