On 11/24/2010 01:12 PM, Julian Foad wrote:
>> C. Michael Pilato wrote on Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:36:31 -0500:
>>> On 11/24/2010 05:41 AM, Julian Foad wrote:
>>>> Sometimes the summary prints the abspath instead of the relpath
>>>> specified on the command line. Specifically, this happens if you
>>>> specify a changelist.
>
> C-Mike wrote:
>> r1038650
>
> Thanks, that looks good.
>
> Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> Another case (with current HEAD, i.e., after the changelist patch):
>>
>> % $svn up ../t2
>> Updating '/home/daniel/src/svn/t2' ...
>> ^C
>
> That's a slightly different issue, the handling of "..". A more
> comprehensive transcript:
>
> $ svn up ../readme.txt ../subversion-b
> Skipped '../readme.txt'
> Updating '/home/julianfoad/src/subversion-b' ...
> G /home/julianfoad/src/subversion-b/subversion/libsvn_subr/dirent_uri.c
> Updated to revision 1038733.
> Summary of updates:
> Updated '../subversion-b' to r1038733.
> Summary of conflicts:
> Skipped paths: 1
So, I have a pair of questions:
1. Given the option of displaying either "../subversion-b" or
"/home/julianfoad/src/subversion-b", which is preferred? NOTE that we
probably do *not* reasonably have that choice because at some point
we'll have converted into an abspath internally, and IMO it just isn't
worth it to pass around both an original path-as-the-user-specified-it
and the normalized abspath. (I believe we should use relative paths
when the targets are in or under ${CWD}, absolute paths otherwise, which
is the typical behavior of the command-line client notification code.)
2. Should "Skipped" items follow suit? (I say, "yes").
--
C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net>
CollabNet <> www.collab.net <> Distributed Development On Demand
Received on 2010-11-24 19:43:02 CET