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

Re: [PATCH] issue 3342 - the right patch!

From: Julian Foad <julianfoad_at_btopenworld.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:35:14 +0100

On Wed, 2009-08-12, Julian Foad wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-08-12 at 16:07 +0300, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> > Julian Foad wrote on Wed, 12 Aug 2009 at 13:47 +0100:
> > > Hi Daniel. This all looks great but I think it makes an unintended
> > > behaviour change. If 'foo' is non-existent, then:
> > >
> > > Running svn v1.6:
> > , not in a WC:
> > > [[[
> > > $ svn up foo
> > > Skipped 'foo'
> > > ]]]
> > >
> > > Running your version, not in a WC:
> > > [[[
> > > $ svn up foo
> > > Skipped 'foo'
> > > Summary of conflicts:
> > > Skipped paths: 1
> > > ]]]
> > >
> > > That's good.
> > >
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > Running your version, in a WC:
> > > [[[
> > > $ svn up foo
> > > At revision 38693.
> > > ]]]
> > >
> > > That's the unintended change. The failure to print "Skipped 'foo'" is
> >
> > It's not a change --- svn16 has the same output when inside a WC.
>
> Not on my system, using svn built from the 1.6.x branch on 2009-07-15.
> What system and version are you testing on?

I don't know why I compared it against 1.6.x. I should have compared it
against current trunk. The current trunk has the behaviour you say, the
same as after your change.

Apologies for that misunderstanding.

Your patch is good, so I have committed it in 38696. Thanks for the
work!

> > > serious. The fact that it prints "At revision ..." is not so serious: we
> > > could accept that (in addition to a "Skipped" message) because it is
> > > analogous to the case of updating a versioned child of a versioned
> > > directory.
> > >
> >
> > I think in this case the file *really* isn't skipped --- for example, if
> > the wc is at r4 and 'foo' was created at r5, then 'svn up foo' works.
>
> > (I'm not saying this is the way it *should* work. But this is how it
> > *does* work in 1.6.)
>
> If 'foo' was created at r5, then 'svn up foo' would print
> [[[
> A foo
> Updated to revision 5.
> ]]]
>
> not just
> [[[
> At revision 5.
> ]]]
>
> That's OK, and that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the
> case where 'foo' doesn't exist either locally or in the repository at
> any revision.

(I may have misunderstood what you meant here, too.)

- Julian

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2382943
Received on 2009-08-12 18:35:45 CEST

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