The more I think about it, --dry-run on update seems to be the right
place for this. Merge and update are essentially the same operations -
just the source of the incoming changes are different.
Scott
On 19-Mar-09, at 10:50 AM, Mark Phippard <markphip_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> So I assume you mean svn st -u would be updated to indicate a conflict
> would occur? It does not currently have the incoming changes
> available to know that. Of course update can only produce a conflict
> if there are local modifications, so a "poor man's" version can be
> made with the current output by looking for incoming changes where
> there are also local mods.
>
> Mark
>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 10:30 AM, Greg Stein <gstein_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'd counter and say that 'svn status -u' (aka --show-updates) should
>> learn to do that. No reason to add more switches :-)
>>
>> On Thu, Mar 19, 2009 at 01:03, Scott Palmer <swpalmer_at_gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Analogous to the --dry-run option for merge, having the same option
>>> for update would allow scripts and tools to test for incoming
>>> changes
>>> (similar to the eighth column in 'status') and detect when conflicts
>>> would happen, without introducing the conflicts into the working
>>> copy. This offers a means to give you a 'heads up' to potential
>>> problems and yet not force you to deal with conflict resolution
>>> immediately like a "real" update would.
>>>
>>> Scott
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------
>>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1351549
>>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1355713
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Thanks
>
> Mark Phippard
> http://markphip.blogspot.com/
------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=1359107
Received on 2009-03-20 12:14:39 CET