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

RE: [PATCH] Add --dry-run flag to "svn update" client command

From: Bert Huijben <bert_at_qqmail.nl>
Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:14:24 +0100

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Arwin Arni [mailto:arwin_at_collab.net]
> Sent: woensdag 2 maart 2011 10:49
> To: dev_at_subversion.apache.org
> Subject: [PATCH] Add --dry-run flag to "svn update" client command
> Hi All,
> In my effort to understand the delta editor API, I took it upon myself
> to try and implement the --dry-run flag for "svn update".
> With Kamesh's guidance, I think I've managed to pull it off.
> Here is the relevant Issue.
> http://subversion.tigris.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2491
> I have attached a log message and a patch that implements --dry-run for
> update.
> Currently, externals are handled inside
> subversion/libsvn_client/externals.c by running checkout/switch. For a
> dry-run update to mimic a real update, the notifications have to be the
> same. Since some of these notifications are generated by the above
> mentioned checkout/switch runs, I have to implement dry-run for them
> also. I'll take this up as a follow-up exercise. Now, the dry-run will
> simply ignore any externals in the working copy.
> Please review this and share your thoughts.

I don't think this is the way we should implement this.

This patch adds an if before every operation in the update editor that changes the working copy. This makes the update editor harder to maintain, while you really only need a simple editor implementation that notifies its output to get a dry run output.

That would allow the dry run code to be maintained independently without obfuscating the existing update editor.

Besides: I don't know why the update editor really needs --dry run support. We always told our users to use svn status -U, which shows the same information in a generally more useful output.

A dry run update is a nice feature for 'svn' with console notification, but implemented this way it doesn't help any other Subversion client, while status -U does. Should we improve status -U instead?

Received on 2011-03-02 11:14:55 CET

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

This site is subject to the Apache Privacy Policy and the Apache Public Forum Archive Policy.