On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 11:30 PM, C. Michael Pilato <cmpilato_at_collab.net> wrote:
> On 01/25/2011 03:53 PM, anatoly techtonik wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 25, 2011 at 9:35 PM, Daniel Shahaf <d.s_at_daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>>> I was suggesting a syntax we might want to implement in the future.
>> So, you basically agree that there is no way to see if a path is
>> absent at specified revision in repository.
>> Should I create an issue?
> There comes a point where you have to realize that the command-line client
> isn't designed to provide an answer for every question you might have. This
> is why we publish a public API in C, Python, Perl, Ruby, Java, .... If you
> need to distinguish different error situations at a finer resolution than
> works/doesn't-work, perhaps it's time you wrote your own tooling.
This stuff is needed for correct uploading of changesets for rietveld
code reviews. Code review site (for example,
http://codereview.appspot.com) provides upload.py script, which is
downloaded by users and executed from command line. Proposing to
download SVN binding together with this script is not a solution. They
may not be compatible with SVN version installed on user system. More
than that - ctypes bindings were announced, but unavailable, SWIG are
lacking memory and have some other issues, so that hgsubversion uses
subvertpy. Speaking about Mercurial, the command line API is the only
guaranteed and stable API they guarantee to work.
The issues with return codes from command line utility previously
raised in Bitten project also. I can't understand why you still do not
think that this is a valid case for a ticket, i.e. that command line
client doesn't allow to see if a path is absent at specified revision
in repository? To me the command call is no different from any other
call (esp. for command line tools), and you can only win from
consistent scheme for documented return codes.
Received on 2011-01-25 23:01:41 CET