[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: Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name>
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 01:39:15 +0300 (Jerusalem Daylight Time)

Julian Foad wrote on Wed, 12 Aug 2009 at 17:35 +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:
> > > > 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.
> > ]]]
> >

Good point, I didn't notice this difference when I wrote the email.

> > 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.
>

Oh, okay. And I agree that in that case (when the file exists neither in
BASE nor in HEAD) it makes sense to make some noise about that (i.e.,
agreed that the notification is a good change).

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

Thanks,

Daniel
(one of them)

------------------------------------------------------
http://subversion.tigris.org/ds/viewMessage.do?dsForumId=462&dsMessageId=2383065
Received on 2009-08-13 00:39:45 CEST

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